FS7: ISO settings with mLUT, what to use?

Liam Hall said:
No. The LUTs are mapped correctly, but they are only useful if your viewfinder is correctly set-up and your viewing condition is perfect, in all other situations you are guessing.
Click to expand...

Yes my VF is correct and I always use the loupe .. as I would think do the vast majority of professional DP,s. . do you have trouble setting up yours ? maybe its a defective unit.. but any decision where you put the exposure is always an educated guess anyway.. I think people are too worried and anal about the whole thing.. worry about framing,content,camera moves,lighting.. a couple of percentage points on a scope is not that important ...
 
Last edited:
Donny, this thread is about the FS7. It really is unhelpful when F5 users dump in on a thread giving advice based on their camera which does not relate to the FS7. Particularly when they do so in such an arrogant manner.

On the FS7, LUTs only work in a few modes. They don't work at all in S&Q mode for example, so if you are shooting CineEi you better be confident with another method of achieving exposure.

On the FS7 you can't assign a button to flick between LUT and Slog. PITA.

On the FS7 the loupe steams up.

On the FS7 the contrast button is easily knocked.

On the FS7 the loupe is quite large, sometimes it has to be removed or flipped up if working in a tight space.

On the FS7 the LUT recommended for use to get exposure is too contrasty. Fine if all you want to find is mid range but not much use over and above that.

Why do you think cameras have zebras, waveforms and vectorscopes? Why do you think external monitors have false colour. Why do you think Zacuto have sold so many of their electronic viewfinders? Do you seriously think Roger Deakins sets his exposure after a quick gander through the viewfinder.

To suggest going an extra step to set accurate exposure somehow means you are foregoing composition, lighting or camera moves is utterly ridiculous. Setting exposure should be second nature to a professional. And every professional should know several ways to get it right.

IMHO if you rely solely on a mLUT you will come on stuck at some point and to suggest it is OK to be near enough, that somehow accurate exposure is over rated is laughable. Ive just shot a 50 min documentary, the grader commented how easy it was to grade thanks in no small part to the accurate exposure. Imagine how much time he'd have wasted nudging each one of my shots into alignment because I'd used your advice?
 
Well it says PMW camera,s and Temp Fs7..Im sorry you feel intimidated .. they are very similar too.. LUTs also don't work in S&Q in the F5.. it also steams up.. VF housing is bigger in size than the Fs7 I think.. I don't believe there is a assign button to switch between LUT and Log.. you can turn the LUT off on the side hot button.. but its not one push.. you can definitely use the MLUT method on a Fs7.. according to Sony the screen is the same isn't it..? cant think why they would bother to make an inferior one from the F5.. when they already have the factory pumping them out..

I have also shot long broadcast programs.. whole series.. all over the world.. and have never "come un stuck" .. no one has spend time nudging my footage.. Im not about to put my CV up but I assure you it would match or exceed your own... as you seem to be inferring ..I never said correct exposure is not important just that really a few percentage on a WFM is not making a lot of difference ... actually Roger Deacons does light and set his exposure a lot by eye.. or monitor.. and sticks to what ever native ISO the camera says.. you should read up on is site..

Anyway this isn't a pissing contest is it?.. and Ive said all the whole way.. LUTs is not the only way.. Ive even said its possibly not the best.. but to say its guessing is just wrong.. simple as that.. I don't think I have questioned anyones professional abilities although you now nudged that line.... or been arrogant .. when ,where ? All Ive talked about is using LUTs to get exposure.. repeatedly saying its NOT the only/best way to do it..
Im a warm and cuddly type .. :)
 
Last edited:
Donny,

Intimated???? LOl. If only you knew...

I'm not playing who's got the better CV nonsense either. I took exception to you saying people who attempt to nail exposure are ANAL. You can get your exposure however you like, but don't call fellow professionals ANAL just because they don't agree with you.
 
Liam Hall said:
Donny,

Intimated???? LOl. If only you knew...

I'm not playing who's got the better CV nonsense either. I took exception to you saying people who attempt to nail exposure are ANAL. You can get your exposure however you like, but don't call fellow professionals ANAL just because they don't agree with you.
Click to expand...

Liam

Wow chill a bit.. nothing was a personal attack against you...a bit telling that you thought I was referring to you... point was just that a couple of percentages either way.. is not going to make any difference.. esp in Log.. and that there are a lot more other things to be concerned about.. a general personal thought only..

The camera,s are very similar .. you seem to be the one saying that LUT exposure is guessing,which it categorically isn't.. and therefore a useless method..with graders taking all their time correcting it.. had you taken my advise ?? talk about the pot calling the kettle black..

Im glad you got to shoot a 50 min program and the grader gave you a compliment .. good luck for future shoots..
 
Well thanks for all of your advise!

I went down to the beach today, exposing with the mLUT (709 800%) and boy it wans't an easy task. Without the high/low option I would never have been able to protect my highlights nor would I dare to imagine that the Slog3 actually captured all that information in the sky. Because on the screen with the mLUT it looked blown out by many stops. Quite amazing for me coming from a GH4, just how much info is in there!




Liam Hall said:
Donny, this thread is about the FS7. It really is unhelpful when F5 users dump in on a thread giving advice based on their camera which does not relate to the FS7. Particularly when they do so in such an arrogant manner.

On the FS7, LUTs only work in a few modes. They don't work at all in S&Q mode for example, so if you are shooting CineEi you better be confident with another method of achieving exposure.

On the FS7 you can't assign a button to flick between LUT and Slog. PITA.

On the FS7 the loupe steams up.

On the FS7 the contrast button is easily knocked.

On the FS7 the loupe is quite large, sometimes it has to be removed or flipped up if working in a tight space.

On the FS7 the LUT recommended for use to get exposure is too contrasty. Fine if all you want to find is mid range but not much use over and above that.

Why do you think cameras have zebras, waveforms and vectorscopes? Why do you think external monitors have false colour. Why do you think Zacuto have sold so many of their electronic viewfinders? Do you seriously think Roger Deakins sets his exposure after a quick gander through the viewfinder.

To suggest going an extra step to set accurate exposure somehow means you are foregoing composition, lighting or camera moves is utterly ridiculous. Setting exposure should be second nature to a professional. And every professional should know several ways to get it right.

IMHO if you rely solely on a mLUT you will come on stuck at some point and to suggest it is OK to be near enough, that somehow accurate exposure is over rated is laughable. Ive just shot a 50 min documentary, the grader commented how easy it was to grade thanks in no small part to the accurate exposure. Imagine how much time he'd have wasted nudging each one of my shots into alignment because I'd used your advice?
Click to expand...


Ok, so if a person would only use the Slog3 image on the display without any LUT applied to the evf, could I use the zebras as I used to do it on my DSLR? And with that I mean that on my DSLR I would set the zebras somewhere around 75, and I would keep all my highlights zebra free and especially the main subject. Is it possible to use the same procedure for Slog3 or do you have to have a different approach? I have never used a 18% greycard since I simply used the zebras to see what is in the safe zone by keeping zebras under control and of my image as much as possible.
 
Donny 123 said:
Liam

Wow chill a bit.. nothing was a personal attack against you...a bit telling that you thought I was referring to you... point was just that a couple of percentages either way.. is not going to make any difference.. esp in Log.. and that there are a lot more other things to be concerned about.. a general personal thought only..

The camera,s are very similar .. you seem to be the one saying that LUT exposure is guessing,which it categorically isn't.. and therefore a useless method..with graders taking all their time correcting it.. had you taken my advise ?? talk about the pot calling the kettle black..

Im glad you got to shoot a 50 min program and the grader gave you a compliment .. good luck for future shoots..
Click to expand...

Donny, I am chilled. Perfectly thank you. I just happen to disagree with you. No need for the personal rubbish. I'm sure we'd both enjoy a beer and shoot the breeze and crack jokes about our ridiculous clients...
 
Tass said:
Because on the screen with the mLUT it looked blown out by many stops.
Click to expand...

Yep. Exactly. Not a problem for some, but an issue for others.

Tass said:
Ok, so if a person would only use the Slog3 image on the display without any LUT applied to the evf, could I use the zebras as I used to do it on my DSLR? And with that I mean that on my DSLR I would set the zebras somewhere around 75, and I would keep all my highlights zebra free and especially the main subject. Is it possible to use the same procedure for Slog3 or do you have to have a different approach? I have never used a 18% greycard since I simply used the zebras to see what is in the safe zone by keeping zebras under control and of my image as much as possible.
Click to expand...

What you set your zebras to depends on what LUT you are using. Of course if you are in S&Q you can't use a LUT. Ben's LutCalc (mentioned earlier) is brilliant and gives you all the values you need to set.

You don't need to use an 18% grey card, but they can be useful at times even if they are a bit of a faff...

My advice is to learn a few ways to find exposure, then you can choose what is best in a given situation or confirm your exposure using a couple of methods when you are unsure.
 
Liam Hall said:
Yep. Exactly. Not a problem for some, but an issue for others.



What you set your zebras to depends on what LUT you are using. Of course if you are in S&Q you can't use a LUT. Ben's LutCalc (mentioned earlier) is brilliant and gives you all the values you need to set.

You don't need to use an 18% grey card, but they can be useful at times even if they are a bit of a faff...

My advice is to learn a few ways to find exposure, then you can choose what is best in a given situation or confirm your exposure using a couple of methods when you are unsure.
Click to expand...

I was reffering to if i don't use any lut, and just monitoring the bare Slog3 image, if zebras still can be used as I did on my DSLR by simply protecting as much of the image as possible from zebra stripes.. And if it is possible to do it, at what percentage should you set the zebras for in order know where the highlights are clipping?
 
Tass,
My understanding of this is that you have a great deal of highlight range that remains below clipping with Slog , but the upper part of the curve is also more compressed than the kids. Hence say you have a shot without a lot of highlights but are only setting the zebra at your brightest exposure, you could end up with everything in the compressed part of the curve. That's why you really just have to use your brain as Liam suggested and learn a number of different ways to set exposure.
Even with a DSLR , if you had nothing in your shot over 18% grey, you wouldn't expose so that was at 90% zebras.

With a RED you can simply expose to the right and shoot right up to the clip point because there is no compression in the highlights - its a straight curve. Not so with Slog.

Personally i often run with an extended 0-109% LC709A LUT and then expose for flesh tones around 55-60. Then I can see everything in the shot, but there's no simple rule that applies to everything unless you can carry a chart with you and use it for every shot - which I can't imagine on a doc.
 
Sorry Tass, yes, put zebras to show everything above 62%, which is 90% reflectance. You have around 4 stops of highlight detail above that point to give a natural roll-off. If shooting HFR open up a stop to avoid noise in the shadows caused by the lower dynamic range. With Slog 3, it's better to overexpose than underexpose as long as you're not clipping anything important. You can set zebras to show a small range or everything above the target. Run some tests and see what works for you.
 
Liam Hall said:
Donny, I am chilled. Perfectly thank you. I just happen to disagree with you. No need for the personal rubbish. I'm sure we'd both enjoy a beer and shoot the breeze and crack jokes about our ridiculous clients...
Click to expand...

Yes agree totally.. I really didnt mean any personal insult..or come over arrogant ..maybe I have to check my manner.. as Im sure you didnt either.. thank you for your reply ..
 
Just wanted to give an update and tell what I settled with.

I went with the REC709 type A mLUT since it gave me a clear image for focusing and midrange and at the same time it allows me to see more of the highlights without it blowing out like the 709 800% does. I somehow get the best out of two worlds with the type A.
 
Last edited:
That's what I often do as well though oddly its not recommended as a method very often. I would suggest you use LUTCalc and make an "extended LUT" that goes from 0% -109%. The reason for this is that LC709A puts blacks at 5% which is a little milky and that's a touch harder to judge exposure with. Also when you use a LUT and you set an EI lower than the default 2000, the LUT lowers the maximum white point lower as the EI goes down . The std LC709A LUT goes from 5% to 100% but at 1000 EI the max white goes down to mid or low 90s and at 500 it slips below 90 as I recall. This then muddies your highlights as well and makes it harder to judge exposure . An extended LUT won't ever get down much below 100. Your whites may go above 100 in the LUT but that doesn't mean anything even if you baked it in. Its just a snappier look and easier to judge. Art Adams suggests making a LUT and using the "Varicam" gamma and the LC709A gamut which slightly raises the midtowns and also gives a snappier better exposed look and I like that combo, and after all its from the guy who created the LC709A look (A is for Art) in the first place. If you don 't know about LUTCalc already you should, and there are numerous posts on DVXUser about it. To understand what's going with the max whites in EI read Alister Chapman's terrific blog/article on using Slog in the F5. I think its the Ultimate guide to exposing Slog on the F5 or something like that. Very similar name to Dennis Hingsburgs also very good article.
 
Thanks for all the info! I have been reading and trying to understand how LUTcalc works, it's quite complex but I'm getting there!

Well the AA709A LUT looks to be just the thing I want, something punchy enough for focus and midtones while giving me a maximum amount of detail in highs and low's. The link for the LUT is for the FS5, I guess that I could easily just copy the settings that he uses according to the screenshot on the page from LUTcalc but just choose the FS7 in order to get the 2000 native ISO?
 
since slog3 only goes up to 94% I'm a bit curious what this "extended" version of LC709A does when people say it was designed to go to 109%?

As far as I know, that wouldn't be possible?

Thoughts?
 
starcentral said:
since slog3 only goes up to 94% I'm a bit curious what this "extended" version of LC709A does when people say it was designed to go to 109%?

As far as I know, that wouldn't be possible?

Thoughts?
Click to expand...

Well I could be wrong but to me it looks like if you want to use it for monitoring the image of the VF, it simply lets you see more into the highlights/dark areas where the ordinary REC709 800% would blow it out and you would have to use the High/Low feature all the time to see "more" of the image in the highlights/darker areas. Or am I totally wrong on this one? :huh:
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top