RIP Sony a7s III

[JimGao]

Didn't we have this already?

You might be better at answering that question than me. Which ones are you referring to? Always good if these little cameras are adopting standards that make them easier to adopt and integrate.

But that doesn't mean the a7siii is dead

It is a contextual comment. A7S3 is “RIP” for cinema shooters. That’s just my take, you’d have to ask the OP what he meant. And obviously the A7S3 was made for a larger audience. this thread title would not make any sense on DPreview.

 

[LennyLevy]

Jesus its back !!!!!!

Hahaha - Doug - I knew it - you couldn't resist a good fight ! While I disagree with you about the value of using a monitor you are of course fundamentally right.

Jonpais - My offer to eat my shoe still stands if you can show the difference between a shot exposed with the same amount of ETTR using cine EI or overexposing at base ISO.

As far as I can see this entirely stupid and pointless argument seems to revolve around you somehow misunderstanding what the rest of us obviously mean by "overexposure" . We're not using it in any technical sense - only to express exactly the same idea as ETTR which believe me we all understand perfectly well.

Of course you wouldn't clip highlights in Slog - indeed that's why I always check my exposure with a waveform or histogram at base exposure . It only means exposing a stop or 2 more than the base exposure would normally warrant. We use the idea of "overexposing" only because at least at high base you can't get a denser exposure (ETTR) by lowering the ISO on an A7 like you could with Cine EI and so you can't see what ETTR would look after post adjustment using gamma assist - Thus it looks like you are "overexposing". Actually you are exposing well within the limits of Slog . Moreover we all understand perfectly well how ETTR or "overexposing"is affecting the dynamic range of the highlights and shadows its a calculated decision . That's all anyone here means and if you still don't get it - god help you and your children.

BTW - Doug doesn't care what the monitor shows as he keeps it in Slog and judges buy his waveform - entirely legitimate and no need for Cine EI or a LUT . More like the film guys many of us used to be.

 

[Doug Jensen]

BTW - Doug doesn't care what the monitor shows as he keeps it in Slog and judges buy his waveform - entirely legitimate and no need for Cine EI or a LUT . More like the film guys
many of us used to be.

Well, actually I judge exposure by zebras, which are far more accurate, informative, and easier to use than the waveform. Especially during run & gun, sports, wildlife, etc.

Also, I will often put a LUT up on my field monitor so other people can get a rough idea of what the shot will sort of look like after grading. But I don't make any exposure judgements based on that image.

As you say, I do prefer to keep my viewfinder unLUTed and showing nothing but the pure S-LOG image. I love the clean S-LOG look while shooting. But even if I wanted to apply a LUT to my viewfinder it would be no big deal to continue to use zebras to set the exposure. It just takes a couple of minutes for someone to figure out how the specific LUT they have chosen to use will affect the zebras. I believe I even provide a chart in my FS7 book that provides the zebra numbers for all of the built-in LUTs and look profiles for that camera. It's all very simple concepts that have been around for almost 10 years now. This ain't rocket science and there's no reason to make stuff appear more complicated than it really is. People who think this stuff is complicated don't understand it.

 

[jonpais]

Jesus its back !!!!!!

Hahaha - Doug - I knew it - you couldn't resist a good fight ! While I disagree with you about the value of using a monitor you are of course fundamentally right.

Jonpais - My offer to eat my shoe still stands if you can show the difference between a shot exposed with the same amount of ETTR using cine EI or overexposing at base ISO.

As far as I can see this entirely stupid and pointless argument seems to revolve around you somehow misunderstanding what the rest of us obviously mean by "overexposure" . We're not using it in any technical sense - only to express exactly the same idea as ETTR which believe me we all understand perfectly well.

Of course you wouldn't clip highlights in Slog - indeed that's why I always check my exposure with a waveform or histogram at base exposure . It only means exposing a stop or 2 more than the base exposure would normally warrant. We use the idea of "overexposing" only because at least at high base you can't get a denser exposure (ETTR) by lowering the ISO on an A7 like you could with Cine EI and so you can't see what ETTR would look after post adjustment using gamma assist - Thus it looks like you are "overexposing". Actually you are exposing well within the limits of Slog . Moreover we all understand perfectly well how ETTR or "overexposing"is affecting the dynamic range of the highlights and shadows its a calculated decision . That's all anyone here means and if you still don't get it - god help you and your children.

BTW - Doug doesn't care what the monitor shows as he keeps it in Slog and judges buy his waveform - entirely legitimate and no need for Cine EI or a LUT . More like the film guys many of us used to be.

Ansel Adams did not like the terms under- and overexposure either, because they imply some kind of error on the part of the photographer, preferring instead the words increase or decrease or the like. Language matters.

“Exactly. Because you intentionally captured an inaccurate exposure. You overexposed.” - Ahalpert

Abe actually has the gall to say that I’m exposing incorrectly if I need to pull exposure down in post - which he, everyone here, and the entire filmmaking community knows is unadulterated bunk. Language matters, even in forums, which is why John Brawley corrected another forum member for using the word overexposure when referring to ETTR. And you know what? No one gave him any pushback. Why? Because they’re afraid of him? No! It’s because he was right, and they knew it. If someone says ‘be careful not to overexpose the clouds’ they mean don’t clip them; they’re not saying I cannot expose to the right and pull all the highlight detail back in post! You don’t need to have 25 years as a cameraman to understand that, for goodness sake.

 

[LennyLevy]

Would I understand then that you accept we have been only arguing over the meaning a word ?

 

[JimGao]

Well, actually I judge exposure by zebras, which are far more accurate, informative, and easier to use than the waveform. Especially during run & gun, sports, wildlife, etc.

Hmmm, none of those a specifically “cinema” situations. Though obviously they can be, and you have posted some gorgeous clips in the past i’ve come across.

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

 

[jonpais]

Hmmm, none of those a specifically “cinema” situations. Though obviously they can be, and you have posted some gorgeous clips in the past i’ve come across.

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

I prefer the traffic lights and false color exposure tools on my RED to zebras, as 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. But if they work for Doug, great!

 

[ahalpert]

.

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

I couldn't agree more re: false color. But as I understand it, Doug's MO is to put a white card under his key light and expose it using zebras to the IRE he has determined is optimal (IIRC he exposes Sony a bit higher than the manufacturer recommends). So it's not about protecting highlights since he could let those go. (Although he has alluded to variations of this exposure method during complex/adverse lighting scenarios.) But it's about exposing white consistently from scene to scene.

Personally, I prefer to rely on false color because it gives me a great sense of how the scene will render. And, with experience from evaluating previous exposures with that camera, you get a good idea of how it's all going to feel in the end. You choose what to let go at either end of the exposure range and you can make quick, informed decisions about how to expose unevenly lit scenes.

 

[JimGao]

I prefer the traffic lights and false color exposure tools on my RED to zebras, as 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. But if they work for Doug, great!

Agreed! I think Doug does great work!

False color and traffic lights are great on REDs

 

[ahalpert]

Abe actually has the gall to say that I’m exposing incorrectly if I need to pull exposure down in post - which he, everyone here, and the entire filmmaking community knows is unadulterated bunk. Language matters, .

Language doesn't matter. Results matter.

The manufacturer has designed a gamma curve with a standard transform to turn a specific exposure level into an accurate representation of the subject on screen.

And every camera set to the same ISO is expecting a certain brightness level for the medium gray it receives..

When you expose brighter than the aforementioned absolute reference levels, I call it overexposure. So does Alister Chapman. It doesn't mean it's inaccurate and i didnt mean to imply that you're doing anything wrong. The whole game is to take the capabilities of the camera and create something beautiful. There's nothing wrong with bringing in a hot exposure if that's what delivers the goods.

Personally, I don't mind a modest amount of noise and I try not to expose too hot if I can avoid it. As long as I'm at base ISO and i won't need to lift the shadows in post, I'm usually going to be happy. Give me a good highlight rolloff...

 

[JimGao]

I couldn't agree more re: false color. But as I understand it, Doug's MO is to put a white card under his key light and expose it using zebras to the IRE he has determined is optimal (IIRC he exposes Sony a bit higher than the manufacturer recommends). So it's not about protecting highlights since he could let those go. (Although he has alluded to variations of this exposure method during complex/adverse lighting scenarios.) But it's about exposing white consistently from scene to scene.

Personally, I prefer to rely on false color because it gives me a great sense of how the scene will render. And, with experience from evaluating previous exposures with that camera, you get a good idea of how it's all going to feel in the end. You choose what to let go at either end of the exposure range and you can make quick, informed decisions about how to expose unevenly lit scenes.

That’s a really cool way to utilize zebras!

 

[JimGao]

Language doesn't matter. Results matter.

The manufacturer has designed a gamma curve with a standard transform to turn a specific exposure level into an accurate representation of the subject on screen.

And every camera set to the same ISO is expecting a certain brightness level for the medium gray it receives..

When you expose brighter than the aforementioned absolute reference levels, I call it overexposure. So does Alister Chapman. It doesn't mean it's inaccurate and i didnt mean to imply that you're doing anything wrong. The whole game is to take the capabilities of the camera and create something beautiful. There's nothing wrong with bringing in a hot exposure if that's what delivers the goods.

Personally, I don't mind a modest amount of noise and I try not to expose too hot if I can avoid it. As long as I'm at base ISO and i won't need to lift the shadows in post, I'm usually going to be happy. Give me a good highlight rolloff...

I don’t understand what you said here. What are you getting at?

 

[ahalpert]

I don’t understand what you said here. What are you getting at?

I don't feel like I'm getting at anything. Our job is to render the scene in a pleasing way. People often expose their cameras (especially at high base ISO) to a brighter level than the camera's ISO would indicate. I call that overexposing. You can call it rating the camera at a lower sensitivity than the manufacturer does. Call it whatever you like. A rose by any other name...

 

[JimGao]

I don't feel like I'm getting at anything. Our job is to render the scene in a pleasing way. People often expose their cameras (especially at high base ISO) to a brighter level than the camera's ISO would indicate. I call that overexposing. You can call it rating the camera at a lower sensitivity than the manufacturer does. Call it whatever you like. A rose by any other name...

It’s like Optimus Prime and Joe Biden hacked your account.

you have a way with general and vague language.

In a technical and collaborative work environment, a rose by any other name is a problem.

Also, I’m not sure i’d say my job is to render a scene in a pleasing way, but i get what you might be implying. I tend to think of narrative as shooting for the story or effect, and sometimes it isn’t “pleasing”, but on a certain level of the meaning, yes it pleases by being intentional. but we’ll get way into the weeds of craft and well outside this once technical discussion.

You’re a cool person. We’ll get it on the next one.

 

[Andy9]

It’s like Optimus Prime and Joe Biden hacked your account.

you have a way with general and vague language.

In a technical and collaborative work environment, a rose by any other name is a problem.

Also, I’m not sure i’d say my job is to render a scene in a pleasing way, but i get what you might be implying. I tend to think of narrative as shooting for the story or effect, and sometimes it isn’t “pleasing”, but on a certain level of the meaning, yes it pleases by being intentional. but we’ll get way into the weeds of craft and well outside this once technical discussion.

You’re a cool person. We’ll get it on the next one.

What Abe wrote seems perfectly clear to me. I'd also suggest that if, on any set where we were shooting log, I mentioned that I was "overexposing by a stop" no one would faint in horror. The director wouldn't say "You mean our highlights are blown?! By a whole stop?! Lamentations and curses!"

What has happened in this thread is not confusion caused by vague language, it's confusion caused by bad faith arguments and trolling by the OP.

 

[ahalpert]

A rose by any other name... ETTR = under-rating the camera ISO = over-exposing = who cares? By pleasing, I don't mean it's always a "pretty" image per se. The effect of the shot should be what you want it to be in that situation. There's a vagueness here because I'm talking about a wide variety of situations. Sort of the same reason I don't talk about constantly ETTRing, since I don't always do that.

The point is that you have some goal that you want to achieve in the final look. (Specifically, the goal of ETTR is to reduce noise and clean up your shadows, I suppose under the assumption that you have a surplus of headroom.) Different camerapeople will have different goals in different situations and different methods of achieving them with different cameras. There are so many variables that it's unwise to make generalizations.

For example, 3 people could be capturing a verite scene against a window. One could be silhouetting the subject, one could be trying to split the exposure between the subject and the scene outside the window, and one could expose for the subject and blow out the window. Once you make that creative decision, you still have to decide on the optimal exposure settings to end up with the best result in terms of color, gradient, noise. Or maybe you want a noisy image on purpose. Etc.

And, personally, I don't like to ETTR. I take a slightly stronger exposure at high base ISO and try to avoid putting important details amongst the noise. But I'm not pro-ETTR. That's not what this discussion of Cine EI is about for me, and I respect other people's choices - especially if I like their results.

 

[JimGao]

I'd also suggest that if, on any set where we were shooting log, I mentioned that I was "overexposing by a stop" no one would faint in horror. The director wouldn't say "You mean our highlights are blown?! By a whole stop?! Lamentations and curses!"

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.

 

[Andy9]

No disagreement from me. Now I'm not sure what you're getting at, perhaps I underestimated the amount of confusion in this thread.

 

[JimGao]

No disagreement from me. Now I'm not sure what you're getting at, perhaps I underestimated the amount of confusion in this thread.

cool

 

[JimGao]

A rose by any other name... ETTR = under-rating the camera ISO = over-exposing = who cares? By pleasing, I don't mean it's always a "pretty" image per se. The effect of the shot should be what you want it to be in that situation. There's a vagueness here because I'm talking about a wide variety of situations. Sort of the same reason I don't talk about constantly ETTRing, since I don't always do that.

The point is that you have some goal that you want to achieve in the final look. (Specifically, the goal of ETTR is to reduce noise and clean up your shadows, I suppose under the assumption that you have a surplus of headroom.) Different camerapeople will have different goals in different situations and different methods of achieving them with different cameras. There are so many variables that it's unwise to make generalizations.

For example, 3 people could be capturing a verite scene against a window. One could be silhouetting the subject, one could be trying to split the exposure between the subject and the scene outside the window, and one could expose for the subject and blow out the window. Once you make that creative decision, you still have to decide on the optimal exposure settings to end up with the best result in terms of color, gradient, noise. Or maybe you want a noisy image on purpose. Etc.

And, personally, I don't like to ETTR. I take a slightly stronger exposure at high base ISO and try to avoid putting important details amongst the noise. But I'm not pro-ETTR. That's not what this discussion of Cine EI is about for me, and I respect other people's choices - especially if I like their results.

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.