FS7: Shooting Custom Slog3 can we see a Look on a monitor out of camera?

Donny, with all due respect, please know that all gain is not created equal. There is analog gain and there is digital gain. There is gain before recording to a codec and gain after recording to a codec. Please do not make the sweeping statement that gain should never be used and that a gain applied in post is always equal to a gain applied in camera. It is not correct.
 
Mitch Gross said:
a window can appear blown out in the LUTted image but the waveform tells you that the recorded signal is retaining the detail, all at a glance.
Click to expand...

I've been relying on the hi/low function to peak at the extreme ends hidden by the lut. The way the luts function on the FS7 is one reason I am saving up for a monitor that can apply luts.
 
Mitch

Im not saying that at all.. Sam questioned if shooting a lit office at 8000 ISO would be better than shooting it at 2000 Iso.. as it would give him thicker neg.. Im just saying this is totally wrong.. and not what a thick neg actually is.. thats all.. nothing about gain on post.. never mentioned.. not sure where you got that from.. just the above shooting scenario .. its not rocket science.. Im giving up my time to help him.. he's going to get sacked if he shoots like that and doesnt understand the basic,s of adding conventional gain to the camera,s sensor.. and how to achieve a thick "neg"..
Not sure why this is ruffling so many feathers apart from a small ego dent for Sam.. ?? this is a forum for learning stuff isn't it.. ?
 
Last edited:
I can see many many situations where having an MLUT applied to the signal in CUSTOM mode could be handy. For example, we all often have to explain to directors that we are overexposing something but the goal is to then crush it in post to have cleaner image ("trust me, this film noir night scene is not going to look like day, I promise, try to imagine it..."). Yes, whenever possible I use CINE EI for that (due to better color science) BUT doing it in CUSTOM mode allows me to have other aspects of the image the way I want right away (exact color balance, specific paint menu settings, gamma, etc), the only thing that needs adjustment is exposure. Yes, when shooting CINE EI colorist can take care of those other aspects in post too, but you have to first have one and then you have to trust that person. What could be other reasons we wouldn't just simply shoot in CINE EI? Well, what if the rest of the project is already shot it CUSTOM, what if the client insists on shooting in that mode, what if this mode allows closer matching with other cameras, etc, etc.
 
Donny, if you're as good as you think you are just post some examples and prove you're right. It should be a simple win for someone as capable as yourself.
 
Don obviously phrases like 'lit office' are highly variable and open to interpretation.

Im referring to any scene where at maybe 2.8 (I don't like shooting wider) the WFM would be hitting 30-40 max at 2000 and getting up towards the ideal 70-80 at 8000, the first image would need a huge bump in post, the second would not. I suggest the second image would be cleaner once the two images were 'equalised' in post

Yes, gain in camera may reduce DR, but when you are getting no where near clip that is just not an issue because you are not able to exploit the DR. Ali's article explains gain lowering DR, I agree. Also note his final comment where he agrees that gain is appropriate where DR is not the issue.

Im glad Mitch agrees with me that there is a difference between pre and post compression gain. He is far more nerdy than me on such matters, I just shoot, throw stuff in Davinci twiddle the wheels and observe.

To use your radio analogy cranking up the source radio does indeed raise both the signal and the hiss but if you have a poor recorder to re-record that signal and that poor recorder is tuned to recording 'normal' SPLs to make a secondary recording of the signal doing that crank up does help as it raises the SPL to the place where the second recorder performs best.

XAVC is highly tuned to recording 'normal levels' and at 100mbs a pretty poor recorder (considering the source signal is a couple of GBs is it not?)

BTW Im a huge fan of EI where sufficient light levels are available.
 
Last edited:
Nirv said:
Donny, if you're as good as you think you are just post some examples and prove you're right. It should be a simple win for someone as capable as yourself.
Click to expand...

Nirv.. what is your problem dude.. Ive claimed nothing about myself.. just pointed out Sam not really grasping something.. and you get all upset.. no need for tests .. its just plain physic,s.. you can look it up anywhere on line.. what a touchy guy you are.. grow up dude.. not the school playground..
 
sam.. well you have changed the goal post a bit from your earlier posts.. if you are having to shoot 8000 ISO to shoot a lit office.. up to 70- 80.. but can get 30-40 at 2000.. yes you are much better off with the 2000.. FS7 is pretty fast camera with 2000 native.. that would have to be a very dark lit office to need 8000.. in this case its actually a dark room.. and you should keep it like that.. it wouldn't have to be 70-80.. in the first place.. why do you think it should be.. ?

I told my mother you thought Donny was crap name.. she's not happy :)
 
Last edited:
Ive not moved the goalposts - maybe not spoon-fed where they are. Im assuming that no one on this board is going to consider 8000 ISO without good reason.. typically a dark environment where for what ever reason they cannot control (add to) the light.. a concert, a performance, a factory, a large night ext, for example, and, in fact, quite a lot of UK offices.. especially when I may choose to control the colour temp, cri and kill panda eyes by turning off any puke green practicals and just use window light.

Donny is a great name. Being anon on a forum is something I am less of a fan of.

S
 
Sure I said the same way earlier.. along the lines of.. yes sure 8000 to catch the Alien ship landing.. but that wasn't really what we were discussing.. the assumption that to shoot 8000 would give a better picture than 2000.. because it was a thicker neg.. thats what i questioned..and thats not what a thicker neg means.. not when 8000 was the only option.. I shoot with a F5 same 2000 ISO.. even for night ext.. in a city ,not out in total darkness.. Ive only had to go to 4000.. and that was shooting an Asian skin tone.. Ive never gone near 8000.. with window day light as you say.. .. I really cant see why you are having to use 8000 Iso.. in an office.. even in the sunny UK..concerts are usually too bright.. I don't think anyone is shooting at these ISO,s in day light interiors.. even with crap over heads off.. its last resort setting.. I feel something is wrong with your set up..
 
Last edited:
Donny 123 said:
Sure I said the same way earlier.. along the lines of.. yes sure 8000 to catch the Alien ship landing.. .
Click to expand...

I don't know what we were discussing, but the OP was talking about using Slog and Custom. Now why would he do that? EI slog is great.. so really on the only reason to use Slog Custom is to take 'advantage' of in camera gain/NR - aka shooting above 2000, well the next two stops are 4000 and 8000, I basically said Im happy at 4000 and will use 8000 in the odd situation. Clearly we agree.

The only thing 'wrong' with my setup is that Im not big on fast primes because I can aquire more, more quickly with a zoom, my 28-85 3.5-4.5, also some jobs I cant light too much.

S
 
Yes sorry.. that was wrong of me to say wrong.. just wondered why it seemed like you were having to go up to 8000 for even day interiors.. I don't remember UK being that bad.. !! Yes agree re zoom.. I have a good one and its saves a lot of time.. and just being able to get your frame exactly where you want instead of having to shift the camera around.. not that I would turn down a nice box of Cooke primes..
 
The answer to light problems is not always solvable with fast primes. 15 years ago I was shooting a documentary which involved one crucial scene of a mural in a stately home run by the National Trust. Not every location could be reccied and we had so much trouble trying to get permissions we didn't bother with a reccie. The client finally managed to sweet talk the NT and we bodded along to film this location and PTCs but what we hadn't realised the mural was so precious and fragile that no lighting was allowed and we were only allowed to work with the light that came through a crack in the door. Okay for the human eye not so great for venerable DSR 350.

The only option was a slow shutter and gain and a very steady hand.

The place was haunted too, BOO!
 
Well then you had a ghost of a chance ..
Thats whats good about these s35mm camera,s .. the pixels/photosites are big.. way better in low light.. the old 2/3 ENG cams were only 300 or so ISO.. approx before any flamers scorch me.. its why Im surprised Sam needs the high ISO,s.. Alexa native is 800.. and FS7/F55 is 2000! .. un heard of levels in the ENG world.. very good article about shooting of Wolf Hall.. on Alexa only 800 ISO..with super primes at about T2.. the DP said he was going around with the camera to set the candles.. as he needed to look through the VF as the camera saw more than his eye....
 
edit too late Ben!

Well some of us consider the FS7 to be around 800-1000, lose your T2 lens move to 2.8 and you need 2000, T4 and you need 4000 F4.5 on an old nikkor ? .. T5.6? 8000.

Im trying to think if Ive ever actually used 8000 on a job - Donny some of my stuff is here Id say the two corporates are defo at least 4000, the opening film Storm was exposed too thin and should have been at 4000.

S
 
Alister Chapman has argued implicitly that there is no difference between adding gain in camera or in post. I have never set out to test this but I also thought that in-camera is better than in-post, and I still don't know the true answer to this.

My theory is that if Sony is going to add gain to go from 2000 ISO to 4000 ISO you can bet they may introduce some variation on their processing, algorithm, or NR -- again no one knows for sure but this is sort of what I believe Sam has shown with his tests.
 
morgan_moore said:
edit too late Ben!

Well some of us consider the FS7 to be around 800-1000, lose your T2 lens move to 2.8 and you need 2000, T4 and you need 4000 F4.5 on an old nikkor ? .. T5.6? 8000.

Im trying to think if Ive ever actually used 8000 on a job - Donny some of my stuff is here Id say the two corporates are defo at least 4000, the opening film Storm was exposed too thin and should have been at 4000.

S
Click to expand...

Ok thanks.. looks good. ..Ben I disagree.. its all good.. more exchange the better.. we haven't been rude to each other at all.. just a good rap.. and in that vain ... well you will get the max DR in Cine EI.. 14 stops.. sure put the ISO down.. thats what Ive been saying all along.. over expose to your MLUT and get a thick neg..while keeping the full DR.. .. or stick with 2000.. you have 6 stops over and 8 under from mid grey.. thats really going to cover a lot set ups.. expect extreme cases .. a massive amount of shots you can give up some head room.. 6 stops is a lot.. I admit the F5 has NR in EI and I often have that set to Low.. you guys should get that too.. thats the beauty of cine EI.. your making that sensor work to its fullest .. although there is a bit more to do in post.. but Iam getting a lot more requests for Slog3.cine .. easier to deal with in post.. for doc,s and corp..
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top