FS7: Red Raven and FS7

Im just interested here. It seems like you might be using a lut exposing white at 60 which might be throwing 50% of the available data away?

This should be the best way of using the camera!

Im not blaming you BTW if there are no suitable luts/instructions - that is an error by sony/CD

Maybe 14/16bit is required and 12bit raw linear is just a flawed concept!

S
 
Nope not doing that. In fact the piece I showed was before the 7Q even had luts :)

I don't use luts on shoots unless it is something that needs the 7Q. Usually I'm just shooting/viewing/monitoring in cine-ei sllog3 sgamut3.cine and so 61% = 90% white
 
I think people should be really wary of cheating data allocation to try and 'maximise' image quality. To my mind it's just adding another element that can go wrong to the equation.

Unless you have total control over the post pipeline, things like ETTR can very easily backfire in the grade.

These sensors have so little noise, so much detail, such excellent dynamic range, and decent bitdepth that (exposed properly) there really doesn't seem to be a need to get tricky with it.

But meticulous exposure is the key. If you want something a stop over - put it there. If you want it two stops under - put it there. You have to make the choice, but when you do, and you expose accordingly, the pictures will come out exactly as you planned.
 
Grug said:
These sensors have so little noise, so much detail, such excellent dynamic range, and decent bitdepth that (exposed properly) there really doesn't seem to be a need to get tricky with it.
Click to expand...


Yes. Unless you are pushing them to the limits of what they are capable of - notably using the raw output and/or using high frame rates. Which is where the bigger boys start to really earn their crust.
 
Grug said:
I think people should be really wary of cheating data allocation to try and 'maximise' image quality.
Click to expand...

it is not cheating.. it is how it is done with linear (if this is what it is) it is clearly dumb not to ETTR.

how you meter/monitor that I have no idea.

S
 
Would it be advantageous if Sony switched to a RAW format that was stored in LOG (10bit or 12bit)?
I assume this would make setting exposure more like what people are accustomed to from film etc.
 
Last edited:
This is precisely what Arri and Red do with Raw - apply a curve to it before it hits the recorder to allow a better distribution of information
 
Ben Scott said:
This is precisely what Arri and Red do with Raw - apply a curve to it before it hits the recorder to allow a better distribution of information
Click to expand...


Sure I know that.

Actually let me rephrase my question, because it was poorly worded.

Why would Sony store their RAW data in a linear format instead of LOG? What do they feel is the advantage? They must have had a good reason why they took this approach, which differs from most of the rest of the industry. I can't image that they would have made this decision without having a good reason.
 
Because it required less work by their engineers. The same ones who still haven't fixed a shutter bug after a year.

It's enough for them to be able to say '4k raw' on the advert. It doesn't have to say 'usable 4k raw'
 
Ben Scott said:
Because it required less work by their engineers. The same ones who still haven't fixed a shutter bug after a year.
Click to expand...

Well, their entire Cinealta lineup is linear, so I'm not sure if that is the answer. Sony occasionally does stupid things, but they are not complete idiots.

I have a friend who is a color scientist at an undisclosed location. If I get an answer from him I'll share it.
 
Didn't call them idiots. I'll call them slapdash, mercenary and completely uninterested in listening to working DPs to help evolve their products once they have their cash.

The LUT implementation is purely to say it has in-camera luts when in fact they are basically unusable for most people.

Just look at the ridiculous menu system on the FS7 or the A7 for that matter. Exercises in refusing to develop better working methods because why? Because it is easier for them.

They've been 3 months late with their first firmware update - then edited all their webpages to make it look like it wasn't late at all - and didn't fix a major bug and now they are going to be 3 months late with their next one - have edited all their pages to make it look like it isn't late at all - with zero mention of whether it is going to be fixed again.


They simply don't care, and their idea of a bug fix is the release of a new camera.

The issues with raw and the issues with banding in general have been on the front page of the Sony official FS7 forums since the first month of the camera's release and I don't think a Sony rep has ever even posten in them, let alone addressed them.

EDIT: Too much caffeine while finessing these recent studio shots that have irked me. Grrr...
 
Grug said:
These sensors have so little noise, so much detail, such excellent dynamic range, and decent bitdepth that (exposed properly) there really doesn't seem to be a need to get tricky with it.
Click to expand...

I have to agree with this. The FS7 and CineEI with LUTs on, FS7 is a very easy camera to expose correctly. Does not need any real trickery. Low light stuff I tend to ETTR a bit for better post control and that's about it. With LUTs on, it's very WSIWYG and I hardly even need the waveform.

FS7 is a cake walk to expose compared to the FS700 S-Log2, which relied so much on the histo / 7Q waveform.
 
gene_can_sing said:
I have to agree with this. The FS7 and CineEI with LUTs on, FS7 is a very easy camera to expose correctly. Does not need any real trickery. Low light stuff I tend to ETTR a bit for better post control and that's about it. With LUTs on, it's very WSIWYG and I hardly even need the waveform.

FS7 is a cake walk to expose compared to the FS700 S-Log2, which relied so much on the histo / 7Q waveform.
Click to expand...

To reiterate, for 90% of jobs yes it is fine and easy to work with. Essentially what I am doing is pointing out the difference between a £6,000 camera, a £15,000 one and a £50,000 one :)

EDIT: I can't use an FS700 as a yardstick because a) I never owned one and b) I hate them
 
Ben Scott said:
Didn't call them idiots. I'll call them slapdash, mercenary and completely uninterested in listening to working DPs to help evolve their products once they have their cash.

The LUT implementation is purely to say it has in-camera luts when in fact they are basically unusable for most people.

Just look at the ridiculous menu system on the FS7 or the A7 for that matter. Exercises in refusing to develop better working methods because why? Because it is easier for them.

They've been 3 months late with their first firmware update - then edited all their webpages to make it look like it wasn't late at all - and didn't fix a major bug and now they are going to be 3 months late with their next one - have edited all their pages to make it look like it isn't late at all - with zero mention of whether it is going to be fixed again.


They simply don't care, and their idea of a bug fix is the release of a new camera.

The issues with raw and the issues with banding in general have been on the front page of the Sony official FS7 forums since the first month of the camera's release and I don't think a Sony rep has ever even posten in them, let alone addressed them.

EDIT: Too much caffeine while finessing these recent studio shots that have irked me. Grrr...
Click to expand...

Easy there tiger. :-)

That seems to be par for the course across the industry.

I'd put Black Magic at the top of the list. They have zero credibility at this point. I ended up canceling my pre-order on the new Ursa Mini 4.6k after getting jerked around for several months. The last time I checked the camera still hasn't shipped.

I've been waiting for months for Bolex to fix certain issues with a promised firmware update. Still no sign when it will happen except 'we're working on it and it's hard work'. But they seem to having a great time at all the film festivals and trade shows.

Red has certainly improved from the crazy early days, but I'm not going to hold my breath that the Raven will ship on time and not be in a BETA state.

As you said Sony has made their share of missteps, but I'm willing to cut them a little slack since they seem to have about 200 cameras in their lineup at the same time.

Arri seems to be doing a pretty good job these days, unless anyone knows better.


But this rat race to one up each other every year is taking it's toll on the business.
 
Harry Lime said:
Arri seems to be doing a pretty good job these days, unless anyone knows better.
Click to expand...
Well... except delivering one ;) Read a thread of guy that've ordered Alexa and is waiting for months to ship with a lot of misinformation from Arri side in between. When finally it arrives there are some accessories missing in a box.

The whole camera industry went completely nuts last years. Like Ben previously said and I will reiterate that: I have no issues with missing promised delivery time. I have issues with lack of info, misinformation or simply lying.
 
Grug said:
To answer Jack's question of how Redcode and Sony Raw compare. Having spend a fair bit of time working with both, I'd break it down like this:

- Redcode (at 5k or 6k) offers significantly more resolution
- Sony Raw at 3:1 compression, generally offers fewer compression artifacts on a per pixel basis (however, once the Redcode is downsampled to 4k to match the Sonys, the overall quality seems very close, at 3:1 compression Redcode offers a significantly more detailed image - but no one ever shoots at such a low compression ratio with Red)
- The noise floor on the F55 and F5 is significantly lower than the Dragon (with skintone OLPF) or MX sensors, the Sony's have a clear advantage in low light and at higher sensitivities
- Highlight latitude seems incredibly close between F5(5) raw and Dragon, MX is a long way behind both
- Redcode's variable compression ratios are awesome, and make shooting raw a much easier proposition (talking producers into buying the harddrives to shoot 3:1 4k Sony Raw seems significantly harder).
- Sony really needs to introduce the 6:1 compressed Sony Raw-Lite from the F65 into the R5 recorder for the F5(5). It would see a much higher take-up of shooting raw with the Sony cameras.

On the whole, comparing what seems to be the two most common types of raw shot with the two brands (5k 6:1 Redcode, and 4k 3:1 Sony Raw) I'd call them incredibly close overall. Either option will let you get a terrific result in finishing (assuming it's been well shot).
Click to expand...

Mark, cheers for this. Harry that is an interesting idea, I may try find some RED RAW but from reading Mark's comments above, I don't think I need to touch RED which is great because I get bad vibes from RED. Perhaps I just trust Japanese tech more.

Ben Scott said:
Look at the first 5secs of this - https://vimeo.com/127490168
Click to expand...

Well apart from that banding that is a nice ad, it makes me want to drink that stuff. I'm not so keen on external recorders so I agree that with the FS7 it might be best to just record internal codec, but you can get ProRes with that extension back. But it makes me wonder, is the ProRes any good from the FS7?
 
No. The Pro Res from the 7Q is visibly better than the Pro Res from the FS7. Plus iirc the Pro Res on the FS7 is HD only as opposed to 4k on the 7Q.

Everything's got a 'gotcha'...
 
Re Sony - Well they all suck but it must be maddening these days to have to come out with an entirely new camera design every couple of years. Its ever more complicated, must take enormous resources, the competition is breathing down your neck, and if you don't get it right the product won't sell and that's an enormous amount of money down the drain. I don't think that they caret they engineering guys think differently than we do. My wife has been on me for years to clean the garage but to me that's low priority because I have a dozen far more important tasks to complete first. Hell I could care less about the shutter I'd just like to have the menus that choose and display LUTs be better. Sounds like what they have been working on is Center Scan, NR and moving the focus point around. What's more important if you only have so many man hours available ?
My biggest beef with Sony is that it seem the engineers don't bother to talk to working shooters enough.

But on to banding . Man that is one ugly artifact. I noticed it only on 2 shots but boy when it was there - Yikes. I'm glad to be forewarned.
Am I correct from reading here that this is a problem only in 12 bit Raw in the shadows because there simply aren't enough bits for the lowest exposure steps. Sorry if I'm dumb here , but I'm not quite clear about Raw being Linear and that being different say than Slog XAVC . Are you still shooting Slog2 or 3 in Raw?
Now that stuff was pretty dark , so I would be curious to know more about how you exposed it Ben . Perhaps I just need to go back a few pages, as I recall you said you put white at 60% which sounds like you exposed it almost for what it looks like. But with such a dark subject I would imagine its a perfect place for ETTR, especially knowing how few bits you've got in the shadows. Have you tried reshooting something similar with a beefier exposure ?

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