I was just curious if anyone is actually using this new feature or if anyone has found it helpful yet? Was also wondering why this feature now? Has anyone been clamoring for it? In his blog about it, http://http://www.xdcam-user.com/2018/06/firmware-4-30-1-20-for-the-pxw-fs7-and-pxw-fs7m2-released-new-iso-change-in-cine-ei-added/, Chapman speculates that it was FCP users this was aimed at. Is this a group that has Sony's ear that much? Just curious why this sole feature was added in its own update.
FS7: REC/OUT EI function, anyone actually using it?
- Thread starter karma17
- Start date
I don't get it - it seems totally arse about tit.
Surely Sony and the NLE makers could just knock their heads together and just use the metadata in the side-cart to tell the NLE how you've rated the camera (eg, 800, 1000 or 2000 etc) and the NLE snaps in the correct exposure-compensated LUT without you having to even think about it (with the option to disregard if you want to.)
Having the rating "baked in" seems totally non-intuitive and destructive to me.
In the course of a shooting day, I might rate the camera randomly across the range of 3 presets I've set up.
What do Sony expect us to do? To shoot a board before each shot with the EI rating as a reference for post? Or to laboriously go through our rushes in Catalyst Browse and get the rating info from there?
As I say, I don't get it. I've had this camera for over 3 years now, and it's (rightly) one of the most popular cams out there - surely that's enough time for them to get their collective shiz together?
Ben.
Surely Sony and the NLE makers could just knock their heads together and just use the metadata in the side-cart to tell the NLE how you've rated the camera (eg, 800, 1000 or 2000 etc) and the NLE snaps in the correct exposure-compensated LUT without you having to even think about it (with the option to disregard if you want to.)
Having the rating "baked in" seems totally non-intuitive and destructive to me.
In the course of a shooting day, I might rate the camera randomly across the range of 3 presets I've set up.
What do Sony expect us to do? To shoot a board before each shot with the EI rating as a reference for post? Or to laboriously go through our rushes in Catalyst Browse and get the rating info from there?
As I say, I don't get it. I've had this camera for over 3 years now, and it's (rightly) one of the most popular cams out there - surely that's enough time for them to get their collective shiz together?
Ben.
Taylor Rudd
Veteran
I'm going to give it a shot. It's nice to be able to change ISOs for run'n'gun/doc shooting, but I hate, hate, hate the colors in custom mode. I want CineEI, but I simply can't get stuck in a situation where we can't boost ISO in camera. Now I might have the best of both worlds.
Expecting Post to keep track of which LUT to apply to each clip isn't an option, since I'm dealing with a shifting roster of shooters, hundreds of hours of footage, and a huge post team. Simplicity is key, even if it comes at the cost of a stop of DR.
Expecting Post to keep track of which LUT to apply to each clip isn't an option, since I'm dealing with a shifting roster of shooters, hundreds of hours of footage, and a huge post team. Simplicity is key, even if it comes at the cost of a stop of DR.
cyvideo
Veteran
Yes I've used it. Unlike previous version firmware when you rated your switch settings for let's say 800 and 1000 and the base 2000 there would be no change of brightness in the viewfinder and no level change in the WFM as you switched between those three settings at any given aperture. So if you selected 800 you would have to bring your peak white up from S-LOG3 level of 61 IRE to around 75 IRE to compensate for the 1.3 stop difference under rate. Now with the new Cine EI Applied setting engaged when you switch to say 800 the viewfinder gets darker and your WFM drops by 1.3 stops in level at any given aperture. So what do you do? You adjust your iris until the peak whites are at 61 IRE again. The end result is that you are now over exposing your LOG by 1.3 stops except that you are not having to push the WFM up to 75 IRE to do it. You just keep using 61 IRE as peak white regardless of whether you have rated the camera at, 500, 800, 1000 or base 2000 ISO. You just keep aiming your peak whites at 61 IRE on the WFM in Cine EI Applied.
Previously changing to any of those pre-determined ISO under exposure settings would mean you would have to increase you WFM levels above the 61 IRE level to compensate for whatever under exposure your chosen IRE was. 500 being 2 stops under, 1000 being 1 stop under. The old rule of thumb being, though not strictly linear is that in the middle range stops 10 IRE is approx equal to 1 stop and 20 IRE being equal to 2 stops. On that basis if you needed to over expose by one stop you would be taking your peak whites to 71, actually its 73 IRE in s-LOG3 to compensate for the fact that you had rated your camera at 1000 IRE, one stop under. Not any more,all Cine EI ratings are treated exactly the same as base 2000. Peak white is at 61 IRE. Sony states S-Log3 is exposed with middle grey at 41% and white at 61%. (skintones between 47-52%). But of course depending on your under exposure EI settings of 500, 800 and 1000 the actual exposure of the files is over by 2, 1.3 and 1 stop respectively. Yes the over exposure is baked into the file under the new workflow exactly the same as it was before when we worked the old way by over exposing by pushing higher on the IRE scale. No difference in the end result. Just a simpler one stop 61 IRE peak level for the camera op to work to regardless of Cine EI rating.
I just find it easier and find exposures are more consistent with this EI Applied constantly being 61 IRE for peak whites regardless of what Cine EI rating you are running with. Saves having to remember what rating I had the camera set at and then having to work to IRE levels of 61 for 2000 ISO, 73 for 1000 ISO and around 85 IRE for 500 ISO. It's working fine for me for sure. I just had to overcome the muscle memory of working the old way as described. It's so simple to just work to one level of IRE settings regardless of how the camera is rated in Cine EI.
Chris Young
Previously changing to any of those pre-determined ISO under exposure settings would mean you would have to increase you WFM levels above the 61 IRE level to compensate for whatever under exposure your chosen IRE was. 500 being 2 stops under, 1000 being 1 stop under. The old rule of thumb being, though not strictly linear is that in the middle range stops 10 IRE is approx equal to 1 stop and 20 IRE being equal to 2 stops. On that basis if you needed to over expose by one stop you would be taking your peak whites to 71, actually its 73 IRE in s-LOG3 to compensate for the fact that you had rated your camera at 1000 IRE, one stop under. Not any more,all Cine EI ratings are treated exactly the same as base 2000. Peak white is at 61 IRE. Sony states S-Log3 is exposed with middle grey at 41% and white at 61%. (skintones between 47-52%). But of course depending on your under exposure EI settings of 500, 800 and 1000 the actual exposure of the files is over by 2, 1.3 and 1 stop respectively. Yes the over exposure is baked into the file under the new workflow exactly the same as it was before when we worked the old way by over exposing by pushing higher on the IRE scale. No difference in the end result. Just a simpler one stop 61 IRE peak level for the camera op to work to regardless of Cine EI rating.
I just find it easier and find exposures are more consistent with this EI Applied constantly being 61 IRE for peak whites regardless of what Cine EI rating you are running with. Saves having to remember what rating I had the camera set at and then having to work to IRE levels of 61 for 2000 ISO, 73 for 1000 ISO and around 85 IRE for 500 ISO. It's working fine for me for sure. I just had to overcome the muscle memory of working the old way as described. It's so simple to just work to one level of IRE settings regardless of how the camera is rated in Cine EI.
Chris Young
Last edited:
But you're chucking away a big chunk of DR at the same time, no?
I think I get the advantage of a monitor LUT and waveform compensation to reflect the different rating, but why would you want to bake that in? Why use Cine EI at all, when you're chucking all that DR away? Wouldn't it be better to just shoot in Custom and make the grade choices in camera?
moldcad
Veteran
So it now works exactly the same as my other 2 cams (A7Rii and GH5) in that I can think of my ISO setting more like the gain applied than how I'm "rating" the camera. Will have to check the real impact on DR though (on my A7Rii, setting ISO to anything higher than the minimal value allowed in the menu (and this changes depending to whether I use S-Log2 or not), I do see some DR diminishing but since one usually only increases ISO to compensate for low-light, the increased noise becomes more of a problem for me than smaller DR does...
Piotr
Piotr
cyvideo
Veteran
Ben.
No more than you are by overexposing by 1, 1.3, 2 stops the old way by jacking up you exposures in the viewfinder. By doing that you were recording the over exposure value into your files. Exactly the same thing is happening whether you expose the old way by taking your peak whites to 1, 1.3 or 2 stops over in the VF on IRE levels or by using the new method. The difference being is that the new workflow allows you to base peak whites at 61 IRE regardless of the EI offset used. It's still 'baking in' the over exposure as you say. Either method is producing over exposed files.
I think off it this way. With the previous workflow EI offsets required a number of higher IRE levels of exposure in the VF to accommodate whatever offsets you were using . The new way you can just select any offset you want but have only one set of exposure levels to work with. Peaks at 61 IRE. Not that I find that 61 IRE rule to be a golden rule that's not to be broken. I rely on my judgement as to what is and what isn't the most important part of my picture composition and decide if I bend or break that 61 level.
End result is if you over expose by either method that over exposure is as you put it 'burnt' into the resultant file. I'm getting used to the new method and see no real reason to go back to having to use different IRE levels to achieve the over exposure I need. Personally I prefer the new workflow.
I think AC explains it all pretty well when talking about the dynamic range trade off. The sensor dynamic range doesn't change. It's fixed but what is affected is how much headroom you have to play with if you move your exposure up or down the dynamic range a camera has. In the case of the FS7 it's about 14 stops or thereabouts.
http://www.xdcam-user.com/2017/09/why-is-exposing-log-brightly-beneficial/
Chris Young