RIP Sony a7s III

[NorBro]

I’m definitely a zebra guy. Haven’t failed me in 15 years.

I’ll use anything and support anyone however they’d like to work, but as someone who has owned more cameras than most, zebras have worked incredibly well for me, especially once you get to know your camera and have an idea of what you’re doing in post.

The fact of the matter is most of us don’t yet have the dynamic range that we want, so it’s all a bit moot. Something will have to give for many scenes and you usually know this immediately no matter what you use.

With zebras…overtime you learn how to optimally work with them for a system…you know how much you can get away with or maybe how skin tones look a certain way with perhaps just a sliver of a pattern on the forehead for various skin tones, etc.

I’m will agree tho that RED’s traffic lights are pretty amazing too (and their edge focus peaking).

 

[Doug Jensen]

Zebras are great for protecting highlights, but false color and waveforms are more thorough for understanding the entire exposure.

I suppose some people might use zebras just to protect highlights, but that is not how I use them. I use Zebra 2 the same way any experienced cinematographer would use a traditional light meter to take a reading of the incident light striking the subject. Anyone who understands the difference between an incident reading and a reflected reading knows that incident far more accurate for determining the correct exposure. The only difference is that I don't need to carry a light meter and I can take my measurement from a distance using the zebras built into my camera, viewfinder, or monitor. Using Zebra 2 like I would use a light meter tells me EXACLTY where to set my exposure right down to 1% IRE accuracy regardless of the subject. Zebra 2 is far more easier to use and I can set exposure in any situation in less than a couple seconds. Tools such as false color and even the camera's tiny built-in waveform can't compare to zebras for setting the exposure. Those tools may help you look at the overall scene and help you make adjustments to contrast ratios, lighting. etc. when you actually have control over those things. But ultimately they aren't as good as zebras (used like a light meter) for setting the exposure.

 

[Doug Jensen]

zebras are based on IRE values, not the actual raw sensor data values. They’re only valid for the ISO you’re shooting at and whichever look settings are selected. If anything is changed in post, they won’t be representative of the final output tones. Zebras are more of a preview and output brightness tool than a real exposure tool. I shoot HDR, and clipped bits don’t roll off nicely, they’re ugly, so I require more precision than zebras can offer me.

Why do you keep posting about things you don't understand? This is absolute nonsense. You clearly don't have a clue how zebras or IRE values work in the field or in post. Just stop.

 

[Doug Jensen]

But wouldn’t it be nicer if you didn’t have to? I think that is the idea behind workflows like what Cine EI provides, you can do all that under the hood stuff and still send the corrected image down the pipeline.

The only pipeline where your EI changes are visible is on the field monitor and/or viewfinder. When a LUT is turned on and EI adjustments are made, NOTHING is changed to the recorded image onboard the camera except metadata, and the last I checked, that metadata can't even be read by Resolve. And even if it is, I would hardly need it in post anyway. If the footage has been purposely under or overexposed from normal levels I will (and any colorist will too) immediately see it on my scopes in post and make the necessary adjustments on node 1.

LUTs and EI adjustments during shooting are just to give people a rough impression of a more final looking image. That's it. And you cannot let that LUTed output lead you to misjudge what the correct exposure should be. The correct exposure that needs to be recorded internally is the same regardless of whether someone is looking at a LUT or not. That is key.

 

[jonpais]

I suppose some people might use zebras just to protect highlights, but that is not how I use them. I use Zebra 2 the same way any experienced cinematographer would use a traditional light meter to take a reading of the incident light striking the subject. Anyone who understands the difference between an incident reading and a reflected reading knows that incident far more accurate for determining the correct exposure. The only difference is that I don't need to carry a light meter and I can take my measurement from a distance using the zebras built into my camera, viewfinder, or monitor. Using Zebra 2 like I would use a light meter tells me EXACLTY where to set my exposure right down to 1% IRE accuracy regardless of the subject. Zebra 2 is far more easier to use and I can set exposure in any situation in less than a couple seconds. Tools such as false color and even the camera's tiny built-in waveform can't compare to zebras for setting the exposure. Those tools may help you look at the overall scene and help you make adjustments to contrast ratios, lighting. etc. when you actually have control over those things. But ultimately they aren't as good as zebras (used like a light meter) for setting the exposure.

That may be your way of working, but not all cinematographers use zebras or agree that they are better than other tools. Some prefer waveforms. Others false color. Some rely on a light meter and a calibrated monitor. Usually, some combination of tools.

"Shooting digitally I now have the advantage of a calibrated monitor on set but I still use a meter as a check. Perhaps others use LOG curves, zone systems and false color but they are no replacement for the eye. I light by eye. It is as simple as that."

"I did use the goalposts and stoplights when working outside, but I primarily work with a waveform. I like the waveform because it tells you exactly where your exposure is within the context of the frame. This helps so much with matching lighting shot to shot. It’s like a digital spot meter."

"I wouldn't get overly worried about exposing. For one thing, with digital, if you have a calibrated monitor, you can see the results of your exposure and you can also glance at the log version to see where things are really clipping."

 

[Doug Jensen]

That may be your way of working, but not all cinematographers use zebras or agree that they are better than other tools. Some prefer waveforms. Others false color. Some rely on a light meter and a calibrated monitor. Usually, some combination of tools.

"Shooting digitally I now have the advantage of a calibrated monitor on set but I still use a meter as a check. Perhaps others use LOG curves, zone systems and false color but they are no replacement for the eye. I light by eye. It is as simple as that."

"I did use the goalposts and stoplights when working outside, but I primarily work with a waveform. I like the waveform because it tells you exactly where your exposure is within the context of the frame. This helps so much with matching lighting shot to shot. It’s like a digital spot meter."

"I wouldn't get overly worried about exposing. For one thing, with digital, if you have a calibrated monitor, you can see the results of your exposure and you can also glance at the log version to see where things are really clipping."

I see quotation marks. Are those your comments or are you stealing someone else's thoughts without attribution? Yeah, I thought so. It is too well writen and makes too much sense, so you didn't write it. Nor did you properly credit whoever did.

There are many ways to skin a cat. I agree my way is not the only way. Obviously the author of those statements is working in a very controlled environment with plenty of time on his hands to craft each shot. That is not the world I work in most of the time, and I doubt it applies to most people here at DVX.

Also notice that he "lights by eye", he doesn't say he exposes by eye. Two different things. He also says "I still use a meter as a check". So he's not doing it by eye or the montior alone, is he? Ultimately he us using his meter and the waveform the same way I''m using zebras. He and I are not so different.

I'm sure that works for him on big budget shoots with lots of time and crew. The question is, what are YOU gonna do for run & gun, documentary, news, events, wedding, reality, sports, and wildlife where you have to be fast and nimble? You gonna drag around a monitor just to set exposure? You gonna stop and read a false color image in the middle of a shot? Ridiculous. Stop stealing quotes from Alister and other unnamed people and tell us what YOU do and how YOU do it. Or better yet, just stop talking and start listening.

 

[jonpais]

I see quotation marks. Are those your comments or are you stealing someone else's thoughts without attribution? Yeah, I thought so. It is too well writen and makes too much sense, so you didn't write it. Nor did you properly credit whoever did.

There are many ways to skin a cat. I agree my way is not the only way. Obviously the author of those statements is working in a very controlled environment with plenty of time on his hands to craft each shot. That is not the world I work in most of the time, and I doubt it applies to most people here at DVX. Also notice that he "lights by eye", he doesn't say he exposes by eye. Two different things.

I'm sure that works for him on big budget shoots with lots of time and crew. The question is, what are YOU gonna do for run & gun, documentary, news, events, wedding, reality, sports, and wildlife where you have to be fast and nimble? You gonna drag around a monitor just to set exposure? You gonna stop and read a false color image in the middle of a shot? Ridiculous. Stop stealing quotes from Alister and other unnamed people and tell us what YOU do and how YOU do it. Your better yet, just stop talking and start listening.

These guys don't do run and gun or one man crew stuff. Not everyone works the same way you do. Some people shoot narrative. Others shoot out of helicopters. I already said how I expose. Roger Deakins, Erik Messerschmidt and David Mullen don't shoot like you. And they certainly wouldn't appreciate being called fools for relying on a light meter, calibrated monitor and checking dailies. I don't try to impose my shooting style on others, neither should you.

Or better yet, just stop talking and start listening.

you're a sad man.

 

[Doug Jensen]

These guys don't do run and gun or one man crew stuff. Not everyone works the same way you do. Some people shoot narrative. Others shoot out of helicopters. I already said how I shoot. Roger Deakins, Erik Messerschmidt and Dave Mullen don't shoot like you. And they certainly wouldn't appreciate being called fools for relying on a calibrated monitor and checking dailies. I don't try to impose my shooting style on others, neither should you.

Hey, you're not Roger Deakins, Erik Messerschmidt or Dave Mullen and I'm sure YOU are not working on shoots at that level. They have their methods, but I would say their methods are not pracitical for most of what is being shot by members of DVX. Charles and a few others might be exceptions, but most of us are working in totally different environments than Roger Deakins, Erik Messerschmidt or Dave Mullen. Are they on this forum? I wonder why not?

If I was going to teach you how to change a tire on a car, I wouldn't start by telling you how the pit crew does it at the Indy 500 because I don't think information would be helpful to you in YOUR world. But that doens't mean the pit crew is doing it wrong.

I never try to impose my methods on other people. I can lead them to water, but it is up to them to decide whether or not to drink it. But more importantly, I can explain my methods, defend my methods, debate my methods, and teach others how to use my methods in a matter of minutes. Teach a man to fish . . .

 

[jonpais]

Hey, you're not Roger Deakins, Erik Messerschmidt or Dave Mullen and I'm sure YOU are not working on shoots at that level. They have their methods, but I would say their methods are not pracitical for most of what is being shot by members of DVX. Charles and a few others might be exceptions, but most of us are working in totally different environments than Roger Deakins, Erik Messerschmidt or Dave Mullen. Are they on this forum? I wonder why not?

If I was going to teach you how to change a tire on a car, I wouldn't start by telling you how the pit crew does it at the Indy 500 because I don't think information would be helpful to you in YOUR world. But that doens't mean the pit crew is doing it wrong.

I never try to impose my methods on other people. I can lead them to water, but it is up to them to decide whether or not to drink it. But more importantly, I can explain my methods, defend my methods, debate my methods, and teach others how to use my methods in a matter of minutes. Teach a man to fish . . .

I don't need to work at Deakins' level to know what works best, what gives me the most consistent results. I watch and listen to lots of filmmakers but have never run into one as overbearing as you.

 

[Doug Jensen]

I don't need to work at Deakins' level to know what works best, what gives me the most consistent results. I watch and listen to lots of filmmakers but have never run into one as overbearing as you.

Thank you. I take that as a compliment.

 

[JimGao]

So, I haven’t kept up with the other mirrorless cine cameras, do others also allow importing custom LUT’s?

 

[Doug Jensen]

So, can I haven’t kept up with the other mirrorless cine cameras, do others also allow importing custom LUT’s?

I am not an expert on mirrorless cameras, but neither my A1 or S1H allows importation of LUTs. In fact, they don't have any LUTs at all. But the A1 has a Gamma Display Assist mode that sort of works like a LUT if the operator doesn't want to look at the pure S-LOG image. The S1H might have something similar, but it is not a function I'd be interested using, so I can't recall. I prefer montioring the unadulterated LOG image when I'm shooting LOG with any of my cameras.

 

[ahalpert]

yes, but why are you explaining basic exposure concept to me? where are you trying to end up, or is it just talking?

also, you never answered the question about which other cameras are already doing what the FX3 w fw2.0 offers. that is something i was genuinely interested in hearing about, if you have the time. it is late now, so i may not get back to you for a while, but i’ll check back and reply.

i'm explaining a basic exposure concept because of the prior debate over the meaning of the word "overexposure." That was the context for this spiraling silliness.

The FX3 and A7SIII had low-bitrate compressed 10-bit 4:2:2 recording options in H.264 and H.265 before this new firmware. I believe you said something about how now we can record small file size 10-bit, but that was already true.

 

[JimGao]

And for what it’s worth, no one is bagging on zebras. Zebras are great. they don’t fail, like a calculator doesn’t fail.

At least in what i said, i said zebras are great at protecting highlights…. which is a good thing. It doesn’t imply they fail or fall apart beyond that. It just means that zebras are to me, stand in a league of their own when needing a quick tool to protect highlights. There are many tools for judging accurate exposure, and from there it is more about what suits your work and preferences. Which could be zebras. But if you are really trying to work on the entire image, there are better tools than zebras. that is not a knock on zebras.

A big difference between zebras and a light meter, for example, is how many readings you can get on a light meter. you can read the shadows and the highlights, and anything in between.Also, one light meter is a constant you can keep regardless of the lens+camera combo you have. So, zebras are a little like using a light meter, but definitely very different tools.

Waveforms are really good too, but are easy to get wrong when in a rush. I used to have an EVF that put the waveforms live, outside the composition frame, and i actually got a little NEO-y and could see the “Matrix”code, so to speak, and enjoyed being able to reference them. But i wouldn’t be using waveforms if i were recording a doc about the NFL’s Superbowl, running out into the field and trying to get those moments while not clipping uniforms and foreheads. I’d use zebras. Because in that situation zebras are actually superior. But in other situations, like a sit down interview, a short film, a music video, there are many options with everyone having different pros and cons.

There is a tendency on forums to assume if some says another thing is better, that their thing is somehow bad or useless.

Even the OP said the A7S3 is “obsolete”, which as a word, does not literally mean “useless”. Obsolete can mean a broader implication, such as being replaced by something better, that renders the old thing unnecessary or outdated as a preference. To me, for cinema use, and in a VS competition for cinema camera, fw2.0 renders the A7S3 the obsolete choice. Not saying throw away your A7S3, or that it is a bad camera. Definitely does not imply the A7S3 is useless.

I’d say the DVX100 and GH4 are fairly obsolete cameras by most standards. But i still found a good modern use for the GH4 recently. We are allowed to use or even repurpose obsolete gear.

So, obviously keep on using the A7S3 and getting awesome images made. It works well and is a professional grade camera. But for a lot of cinema style shooters, we’re pretty happy about timecode, uploading custom LUT’s, and the CINE EI option.

Wish you all continued success, and appreciate all of the contributions, and insights!

 

[JimGao]

i'm explaining a basic exposure concept because of the prior debate over the meaning of the word "overexposure." That was the context for this spiraling silliness.

copy that. Fair enough. but despite the debate, i think every single poster has demonstrated an ability to properly expose an image.

The FX3 and A7SIII had low-bitrate compressed 10-bit 4:2:2 recording options in H.264 and H.265 before this new firmware. I believe you said something about how now we can record small file size 10-bit, but that was already true.

In context, what i was talking about, was using the CINE EI workflow, with timecode and custom LUT’s on the FX3 to get a shoot all day on a couple batteries and smaller file sizes. It is the combination of all of those that have a unique appeal. it isn’t just about small file sizes, as we’ve had those since the DVX100.

And to be fair, I might feel the FX6 is still the better option, but i could imagine using the FX3 over the A7S3 or R7 etc.

Thanks for replying. Cheers!

 

[Doug Jensen]

But in other situations, like a sit down interview, a short film, a music video, there are many options with everyone having different pros and cons.

Jim, lots of good points in your post and I agree with the spirit of it, and most of the details.

If you don't mind me putting you on the spot, could describe your method of setting exposure on a typical sid-down interview with controlled lighting and nothing unusual to deal with? If you don't want to, that is fine.

 

[JimGao]

I am not an expert on mirrorless cameras, but neither my A1 or S1H allows importation of LUTs. In fact, they don't have any LUTs at all. But the A1 has a Gamma Display Assist mode that sort of works like a LUT if the operator doesn't want to look at the pure S-LOG image. The S1H might have something similar, but it is not a function I'd be interested using, so I can't recall. I prefer montioring the unadulterated LOG image when I'm shooting LOG with any of my cameras.

Good information, thank you!

 

[Doug Jensen]

copy that. Fair enough. but despite the debate, i think every single poster has demonstrated an ability to properly expose an image.

Hmm, unless they've posted footage how can you say that? Talk is cheap. I see a ton of poorly exposed stuff on broadcast television, let alone YouTube and other places like that. Someone has to be shooting it. One thing I learned early on when forums became a thing is that some people can really talk a good game and you assume they must really know their stuff. But then you see an example of their work, and reality can't be hidden. I'm not saying that is the case with anyone on this thread. I'm just saying we don't know. Especially when a lot of people are still hiding their identity behind fake names.

 

[JimGao]

Hmm, unless they've posted footage how can you say that? Talk is cheap. I see a ton of poorly exposed stuff on broadcast television, let alone YouTube and other places like that. Someone has to be shooting it. One thing I learned early on when forums became a thing is that some people can really talk a good game and you assume they must really know their stuff. But then you see an example of their work, and reality can't be hidden. I'm not saying that is the case with anyone on this thread. I'm just saying we don't know. Especially when a lot of people are still hiding their identity behind fake names.

As a general observation, i agree, but everyone here has posted their work somewhere, and at some point and show an ability to expose properly…. except for me. haha. so, i’ll have to do that sometime, i suppose.

 

[ahalpert]

I'm sure there are many articles out there about this, but can someone here who advocates using RED's "traffic lights" explain to me what exactly it is technically telling you? It always seemed to me like the training wheels of exposure aids. And sure, when you have lots of latitude you can afford to be a little sloppy. But how is it actually a good system?