FS7: RAW SDI output recorded in 4KDCI@50p on Shogun Inferno: good news!

Never used an Inferno, but presumably it knows it is receiving raw from an FS7 and so applies that gamma curve. One assumes that if you plugged a C700 into it you'd get C-Log. No reason other than Atomos why it shouldn't give you a variety of flavours of curve to apply. Been a while but I seem to recall the 7Q offering slog2 or slog3 on the FS7.
 
Sure the Shogun has presets (Sony, Canon, Panasonic, Arri) - but I was under impression it uses them for applying monitoring LUTs correctly. To apply actual gamma curve before conversion and encoding of RAW to DNxHR/Prores, some flag must be read from the camera about which gamma curve has been set by the user... IMHO :)

Piotr
 
at the 7Q RAW is RAW and you can transcode it to any codec you prefer in post.
For RAW -> ProRes the Odyssey devices only offer sLog2
 
Last edited:
moldcad said:
My knowledge is by far not enough to answer this question. Another one which I've been wondering (and would appreciate somebody with enough knowledge to chime in - but with hard fact rather than speculation): why is it still possible to impose a gamma curve on the FS7 RAW footage? I will sound naive, but I thought RAW is linear by definition - and yet I'm happily using my SDI RAW signal in CineEI mode, and S-Log3/S-Gamut3.Cine applied... With this in mind, the footage encoded into DNxHR by Inferno has all the characteristics of S-Slog3 footage! Which is what I needed for those particular experiments of hunting the alleged noise in footage with high dynamic range (shooting into bright window in a darkiroom). Gurus, please explain :)

Piotr
Click to expand...

This is exactly why your findings don't say much about usability of RAW (as recoded as RAW). The claim has always been that the issue with it is due to the fact that it is linear so it is mathematically incapable of storing 14 stops of dynamic range in 12 bit recording.
 
Plus this being the amount of information being distributed among those 12-bits and thus (unless you have no quality control) rendering anything 2 stops under mid-grey to be useless and making a 14-stop camera a 7 stop one.

uPoF2s0.png
 
Never said anything "about usability of RAW (recorded as RAW)" - this functionality is not yet implemented on the Shogun. And even when it is, I'll never use it because of diminishing return costs.

All I said is that SDI RAW output (as the only way of getting more than 8-bit 420 from the FS7) - converted and recorded as ca. 1,500 Mbps 10bit 422 DNxHR HQX by the Shogun - is of excellent quality, exceeding the internal XAVC-I by far.

Piotr
 
Ben Scott said:
Plus this being the amount of information being distributed among those 12-bits and thus (unless you have no quality control) rendering anything 2 stops under mid-grey to be useless and making a 14-stop camera a 7 stop one.

uPoF2s0.png
Click to expand...

This is not how 12 bit raw is typically written though. The first stage AD is typically 16 bit not 12 bit. For linear a 12 bit file the four least significant bits are dropped so 12 bit 1 represents a 16 bit value of 16. When I open a 12 bit DNG frame in a raw processor, the resulting value table is expanded back to 16 bits. I have read ranges of discrete single pixel values at the low end of the scale that would not be numerically possible with a straight 12 bit linear value table.
It is certainly possible to apply a gamma curve to a raw data table, but obviously it is no longer linear. If you look at modern wide DR gamut curves, you will see that they compress typically the bottom 4 stops of linear DR into about a 1 stop linear range.
 
It's doesn't really matter in this instance how you get there as there are countless pages on this forum and others dedicated to the fact there is significantly less information in an FS7 raw dng than its wrapper would suggest it is capable of holding. I myself have first hand experience with the issue (and have posted examples) as well which led to me selling the extension and forgetting the idea of raw with the fs7 as just a marketing gimmick. Both Red and Arri apply a gamma curve to their raw outputs.
 
Last edited:
You know Ben - you're a really strange guy. Only 3 weeks ago I asked on this forum whether it's worth it to buy the XDCA as the only means of getting deeper-than-8-bit color at framerates >30 fps (with HDMI only being 8bit 422 at those higher rates) - and it was yourself who said the problem with linear RAW (resulting in the "horrible banding due to lack of color info in shadows") has been solved (OK - you said "improved", not solved) in the meantime. Now you deny my findings there is no banding whatsoever (at least with Inferno encoding the FS7 RAW into DNxHR or Prores, which is completely enough for me) - and admit you have sold your XDCA because the problem still exists... Not only you're not being helpful - it almost looks like you misinformed me on purpose :(

But think and write what you want, my (un)helpful (not)good man - the fact is that while it's been essential part of my HDR grading workflow to use NR on 90% of my XAVC-I 2160p50 footage, with DNxHR out of the RAW I do not have to use NR in post *at all*. Also, your claims that 14-stop dynamic range becomes 7-stop only when using RAW is *ridiculous*. If I thought you have any idea about grading HDR, I'd prove it to you that my RAW->DNxHR workflow yields even wider DR than I can possibly get from XAVC-I (both using S-log3). But you have no idea about it - so I'll only say here that RAW gives me perfect HDR picture with brightness up to my monitor limit (1400 nits), and I have plenty of perfectly detailed picture info in both the brightest and the darkest (like 10 nits) frame areas. And that there is no noise or banding at all in the shadow and midtone range (0-100 nits).

So instead of helping me understand how technically the S-Log3 curve is applied to my RAW footage before it's converted to DNxHR (which is what I kindly asked experienced people like yourself), your answers try to indicate my Shogun and XDCA adapter has been the worst investment an FS7 owner could possibly do... Man - are you jealous or what?!!!

If not jealous, you certainly aren't helpful but ratty and wicked - and I don't mean just your attitude towards myself. Your comments on Alister Chapman (whose knowledge you will never have or share like he does, free of charge) only confirm you're just mean, and arrogant.

Piotr
 
moldcad said:
You know Ben - you're a really strange guy. Only 3 weeks ago I asked on this forum whether it's worth it to buy the XDCA as the only means of getting deeper-than-8-bit color at framerates >30 fps (with HDMI only being 8bit 422 at those higher rates) - and it was yourself who said the problem with linear RAW (resulting in the "horrible banding due to lack of color info in shadows") has been solved (OK - you said "improved", not solved) in the meantime. Now you deny my findings there is no banding whatsoever (at least with Inferno encoding the FS7 RAW into DNxHR or Prores, which is completely enough for me) - and admit you have sold your XDCA because the problem still exists... Not only you're not being helpful - it almost looks like you misinformed me on purpose :(

But think and write what you want, my (un)helpful (not)good man - the fact is that while it's been essential part of my HDR grading workflow to use NR on 90% of my XAVC-I 2160p50 footage, with DNxHR out of the RAW I do not have to use NR in post *at all*. Also, your claims that 14-stop dynamic range becomes 7-stop only when using RAW is *ridiculous*. If I thought you have any idea about grading HDR, I'd prove it to you that my RAW->DNxHR workflow yields even wider DR than I can possibly get from XAVC-I (both using S-log3). But you have no idea about it - so I'll only say here that RAW gives me perfect HDR picture with brightness up to my monitor limit (1400 nits), and I have plenty of perfectly detailed picture info in both the brightest and the darkest (like 10 nits) frame areas. And that there is no noise or banding at all in the shadow and midtone range (0-100 nits).

So instead of helping me understand how technically the S-Log3 curve is applied to my RAW footage before it's converted to DNxHR (which is what I kindly asked experienced people like yourself), your answers try to indicate my Shogun and XDCA adapter has been the worst investment an FS7 owner could possibly do... Man - are you jealous or what?!!!

If not jealous, you certainly aren't helpful but ratty and wicked - and I don't mean just your attitude towards myself. Your comments on Alister Chapman (whose knowledge you will never have or share like he does, free of charge) only confirm you're just mean, and arrogant.

Piotr
Click to expand...

It seems to me that you are a bit confused about the difference between RAW > RAW vs RAW > DNxHR and its implications, it seems that you don't understand that you and Ben are talking about two different things. What confirms it is your other comment: "To apply actual gamma curve before conversion and encoding of RAW to DNxHR/Prores, some flag must be read from the camera about which gamma curve has been set by the user... IMHO ". What gamma curve ? It's a RAW signal. RAW. Straight from the sensor, no gamma curve is applied by the user that carries over into RAW signal.
 
Yes, I'm confused about this part - and this is why I kindly asked you guys to help me understand it. The fact is that even with the RAW as the only output format (the FS7 can also be set to a combination of RAW ext. plus XAVC-I, etc.), I can apply a gamma curve in the camera Menu which is confusing. I don't understand it at all, but another fact is that when I pick S-Log3, the (encoded into DNxHR) footage looks log-like in Resolve (levels and colors being the same as regular XAVC-I S-Log3/S-Gamut3.Cine), and I need to "de-log" it with RCM transforming the output to Rec.2020/BT2084...

Piotr
 
Wow.

I have repeatedly tried to help you and give you advice when it 's been asked for in the spirit of sharing and positivity as I have done the same with others both in the forum and those who have contacted me via private message. If it has fallen on deaf ears or you disagree with my opinions or advice that's your right and that's perfectly okay. However when you spend so long procrastinating about stuff for page after page after page when you have already received all the good advice you can get on the subject, you should expect a joke or two from people.

Onto the main subject - As an early adopter I've been banging the drum about the FS7's raw output since the beginning of 2015 and its problems. The thread still going on the Sony forums was way back when was started by me. There were multiple threads on here I'd started and contributed on the subject in order to keep the conversation going and draw attention to it. I contacted Sony privately as well. To the degree where various people (who I won't namecheck here) contacted me and involved me a tiny tiny bit in their efforts of trying to get it sorted.

Though it was improved it was never really good enough for my needs and so I have one project shot raw to dng and one project shot raw to pro res and they both stick out like a sore thumb to me when I watch them and so I sold that gear and decided to just keep the FS7 as an internal-recording only machine from now on. Since then I know quality has been improved a little via the raw output with firmware revisions but it doesn't change the fundamental issues with Sony's raw implementation for this camera. I have never ever been anything but consistent about that. Is it good enough for what you're doing with it? I have no idea. I don't know what your shooting style/standards are and I don't know what your workflow and end delivery is. Test for yourself and find out. What it did to the shadows with my work made it utterly useless. Once 2 stops under mid-grey the artefacts in the shadows were horrific. But not everyone shoots like me.


Please don't compare me to Alistair. That's just mean. I don't spread misinformation on blog posts to defend the people that pay me.

One last thing...

I use my real name on here. I don't hide behind a username. My work and my website is there for everyone to see. Whether you think it is decent or you think it is terrible that is perfectly up to you and you can see who I am and have a point of reference as to who is trying to help you, which can be difficult on here. I wish the forum enforced real names to be honest. We shouldn't need to hide on here.

Anyway, whatever you might think of my knowledge and my skillset and my attitude I am honest, and I try to help where I can, when I can. I make no claims of being good/great at all. I live in a constant state of dissatisfaction with my work and am always trying to get better. The only claim I will make is that I've been doing this job professionally long enough to be allowed to claim I am experienced. And where I can apply that experience to help people like I was helped when i was starting out, I do. If the way I do that rubs you up the wrong way well I guess you can't please all the people all the time and there are plenty of other people who will give you the advice you are seeking.

But 'Ratty and wicked and mean and arrogant?' Seriously?
 
Last edited:
Piotr, a picture is worth a thousand words, as they say. Why not post some grabs from your footage? Maybe even some actual footage? Who knows, maybe Inferno is doing a better job with the RAW signal coming from FS7 than Odyssey? I think some basic grabs are absolutely necessary to make this thread worth anything (and your claims mean anything).
 
Yep, I'll probably posts some pics - right now awaiting my SSD caddy dock to return from Atomos (it was probably faulty). As to the "log look" of my RAW output, I've found the answer in the manual: for RAW Rec out, the FS7 must be in CineEI mode, and Gamma must be either S-log2 or S-log3 - as simple as that (and makes sense).

Now just a single screen grab (please remember it's from HDR grade, so better take the .drx into Resolve); the png is flat!

Piotr

PS. If S-log2 or S-log3 are always on with RAW rec out, how can it be "linear"?
 

Attachments

  • from window_1.1.1.jpg
    from window_1.1.1.jpg
    14.6 KB · Views: 0
Last edited:
moldcad said:
You know Ben - you're a really strange guy.
Click to expand...

that's tough Piotr.

To make it clear: I received a lot of help and advice from Ben's experience in a friendly way. It's outstanding and many many thanks for that. The strange guy who fills up this forum with hundreds of pages of repeating the same topics is you. I have been absent for a while and being bored by your litany was the main reason. I never received any help from you. You are only asking and taking.
 
Ben is from the UK.. and therefore ratty and wicked.. its a cultural thing.. but to me he seems a good guy and ready to give help or advise when needed and seems to know what he's talking about.. I believe you owe him an apology sir..
 
Piotr,

If you get a ProsRes or a DNxHR file out of the Shogun, it has a s-log3 curve apply. My understanding is that the Shogun read the raw signal and apply the S-Log3 gamma curve internally whatever how you set your camera. After all it is logic, with raw files (CDNG, in case of Atomos and Convergent Design) you can decide what gamma curve to apply after shooting. Please note that the raw to s-log3 conversion is an Atomos version that may look different or slightly different that the Xavc file from the FS7.

If you get CDNG files out of the Shogun, they are Raw files, meaning no gamma curve applied. From then, you can convert it in S-Log2 or 3 if you have the right LUT.
 
No, Atobit - I thought exactly along this line at first, until I found it on Page 52 of the *newest* User Manual for FS7: in order to activate RAW output the camera must be in CineEI mode, and the only options for Gamma are S-log2 and 3. You cannot turn Gamma OFF, either (this option is grayed out). So it's not the Shogun that bakes in the log look; it's FS7 RAW which is either S-Log2 or S-log3 (but interestingly enough, you *can* change color space between S-Gamut for S-log2, and S-Gamut3 or S-Gamut3.Cine for S-log2).

So please guys - don't play offended, but tell me: has this changed compared to the early version that all this rave about RAW being linear, and as such holding too little information in the shadows? Or am I still missing the point... Thanks,

Piotr
 
Clermond said:
that's tough Piotr.

To make it clear: I received a lot of help and advice from Ben's experience in a friendly way. It's outstanding and many many thanks for that. The strange guy who fills up this forum with hundreds of pages of repeating the same topics is you. I have been absent for a while and being bored by your litany was the main reason. I never received any help from you. You are only asking and taking.
Click to expand...

Well - all I ever received from Ben (or yourself, or Donny) have been short inconclusive answers, with lots of impatience and mockery. Not getting a constructive answer kept me "asking and taking", as you put it; should I get a single more informational answer my questions would have stopped then and there...

Donny 123 said:
Ben is from the UK.. and therefore ratty and wicked.. its a cultural thing.. but to me he seems a good guy and ready to give help or advise when needed and seems to know what he's talking about.. I believe you owe him an apology sir..
Click to expand...

I personally know plenty of both Englishmen and Americans (or any nationality speaking English, as most of these forum use it as the universal language), and some of them are nice while others treat my (and others') questions as a curse. Nationality has nothing to do with it.

The most irritating thing that many of those high-ego people take time and effort to type a mocking "answer", but have no time or will to simply answer my (and others') questions.

And yet, I am indeed saying "Sorry, please forgive me" to Ben for all those harsh words I used. I hope I'll be forgiven :)

Piotr
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top