Slog must not be as good as they claim

Hello bgundu,
That's a bad test example. They are both underexposed with one more than the other. Like I said before, the camera w/o Slog has a great latitude. To see the difference you will provably need extreme condition and a really good monitor to see the original footage.

Ian-T Connecticut is a great place to live. You have a great wide open studio to work in. I remember the old barns, the rolling hills. river streams, water falls, rural roads and the contrast of old and new. I do miss CT, specially from spring to fall.
 
Douglas Villalba said:
... but as for me and my clients, we need color and contrast.
Someone please post something Slog capture with color grading to see the 12-14 f/stops it claims to do.
Click to expand...

If its that important to you and your clients, sorry but why not just rent one for a day as investment into your future, and find out for yourself what it can do? (and make your client pay for it - haha)

SLOG (RAW) is as good as its going to get (next to film) for increasing dynamic range and giving you the ability to recover areas of your image that are in the lows or highs. I realize you're asking for "proof" but it will be hard to find since you will never know the original conditions something was shot in versus what you are watching as a completed and finished product.
 
Its absolutly possible. I think folks that see the dynamic range don't want to throw it away in the grade. (That's what crushed black is, and why looks like it does.)
 
TimurCivan said:
Its absolutly possible. I think folks that see the dynamic range don't want to throw it away in the grade. (That's what crushed black is, and why looks like it does.)
Click to expand...
Timur what is the use of having the extra latitude if you don't reach both ends. Black have to look black and color have to look natural. If you like the de saturated style that is fine, but that is just a look. How about normal grading to show full latitude. I'm sure that everything I have seen posted don't reach near 0 on the waveform monitor on vital parts of the shot.
 
Well the camera could have cost 16900 with slog enabled out the box.

The idea was if some potential customers are not going use slog, why pay for it.....

You're looking at it backwards.
 
From a business standpoint that's the only way it can work. What makes slog expensive is the R/D to make it happen.

Sony wants to sell a lot of cameras. A 13,300$ camera is more accesible than a 16,900 one. Now consider this: Slog is software. The F3 is just hardware. A macpro decked out w/ all the goodies is let's say 7,000$. Great hardware, and stock it has safari, imovie, word processing etc.... Much like how the F3 has a great sensor, xdcam and sxs slots. Good adequate components. Bu the horsepower of the system hardware is over kill. Now is it unfair that apple doesn't include for free, FCP, Motion, color, or anyother software??? No it isn't.

Maybe someone wants a computer that is fast and will work efficently with the stock tools.

But apple could include it, and it will drive up the cost to 9,000 for the sake of argument. What's easier to sell? A 7,000 computer that will do what 90% of its users will need out of the box? Or force evryone to pay the higher price and get software they don't want?

Its smart, no, Brilliant business.... cause down the line perhaps a user will want better..... maybe they will want davinci resolve.... or flame... or smoke....

Let them make that choice later. Most likely they will...
 
As stated before, I'm not a Sony Fan, but I have to admit this camera is absolutely fantastic for the price. We are talking about a camera that can blow away the image of a F900, at 1/10 of the price. There's no camera like this at this price range. This camera is affordable enough for an indie filmmaker to own, or a small shop, without breaking the bank, Its the ideal camera for Broadcast work, for example, which will stay 1080i/p for a LONG TIME. As for cinema, just recently Captain America was shot in 1080p. Proof enough its capable for high end cinema, too. Its not a camera that will get you a "Pirates", or a "Hobbit" kind of job, for that you need to go 40k+ on your camera budget.

Its all a matter of perspective: Do you think you'll be working with the high end, like the big music producers for those expensive MTV-'s. or with the ING's, NIKE's, ADIDASs, MCDONALDS, AUDI's kind of clients? Then probably this is not the camera you would market yourself around with. Can you make equally stunning TVC's for these brands with an F3? maybe yes, but when you pitch yourself for the high end high paid jobs, you need to impress, and having the best, most expensive and most well known gear impresses the clients.

In my opinion, the F3 is a nice camera to OWN. The above 40K cameras are nice cameras to RENT. Only if you do not have the possibility to rent that you should even consider those cameras to own, or if you want to establish a rental business. Bottom line, again, IMO, the F3 is the BEST camera to OWN- within reason-on the market right now.
 
Exactly what Timur said. And keep in mind, Sony plans to offer other specialty options for the F3, including a servo control lens, and a separate firmware option for 3D linking. But many of us don't actually need 3D linking. And some of us might only ever do two or three 3D shoots. So, for those of us who don't need that software at all (or exceptionally sparingly), not having to pay for it, or getting to rent it only when we need it - is an amazing deal.

Microsoft sold me an Xbox 360 for $300. Is is unfair that they don't give me all the games for the same price?

Software takes time to write, and to test. And professionals like us, there's a very small user base, and we're very demanding.

But you're right - it is just firmware, you already own the hardware. So, legally, you're welcome to write your own firmware code to access the hardware you already own. I thought about it too... but, I'm probably not that smart, and I sure as hell could make alot more than $3,680 if I spent the same amount of time working as a DP.

And lets remember.... the F3 came out in February, 1.5 months after the AF100. Sony rushed it. They did a good job, but they knew people in the field wanted it, so they released the camera before they were done writing the 3D link and S-Log code, not to mention the accessory lenses they're developing. In my opinion, that was pretty slick and awesome.
 
I'm not sure they rushed it....

But they did surprise us with the spec sheet. And they came in far under its proposed price. I remeber the estimated price was 17k or so....

But street price of 13300!? Amazing. A bargain. A steal.

Having an ownable slog camera for 16900.... unheard of.

Based on the rate of growth/advancements I think there will be 3k and 4k sony/panny cameras in 3 years. Seriosuly.
 
When I say rushed, I mean they gave us what they could, when they could. They didn't wait for S-Log to be ready to release the hardware platform.

Sony's already announced the F65, which is 4k... and it'll likely be under 100k.

And, Sony's announced a new DSLR that'll do 1080 60p. Canon better get crankin'!
 
You know, Canon did a great job with the DSLR's. Yes, they have moire, aliasing, etc, but they truly were a revolution for the indie. They even introduced a Log like picture profile for free (Cinestyle), which is amazing, pretty close to Slog, actually, giving more stops of latitude to the Canon DSLR's. Unfortunately, the Log in Canon DSLR's is practically unusable but for very extreme contrast situations, due to the Banding and added aliasing and stairstepping artifacts you get by using it (curiosly enough it helps on the moire). The whole game would change, however, if Canon came out with a moire and aliasing free DSLR or even a video camera with 10bit HDMI or SDI Output. With the Cinestyle profile, Canon could really dominate the indie market. ..
 
these days there are "two" indie markets...

The dslr indie, and the "non union" indie. 5D mkIII for one, F3/Epic for the other....
 
TimurCivan said:
From a business standpoint that's the only way it can work. What makes slog expensive is the R/D to make it happen.

Sony wants to sell a lot of cameras. A 13,300$ camera is more accesible than a 16,900 one. Now consider this: Slog is software. The F3 is just hardware. A macpro decked out w/ all the goodies is let's say 7,000$. Great hardware, and stock it has safari, imovie, word processing etc.... Much like how the F3 has a great sensor, xdcam and sxs slots. Good adequate components. Bu the horsepower of the system hardware is over kill. Now is it unfair that apple doesn't include for free, FCP, Motion, color, or anyother software??? No it isn't.

Maybe someone wants a computer that is fast and will work efficently with the stock tools.

But apple could include it, and it will drive up the cost to 9,000 for the sake of argument. What's easier to sell? A 7,000 computer that will do what 90% of its users will need out of the box? Or force evryone to pay the higher price and get software they don't want?

Its smart, no, Brilliant business.... cause down the line perhaps a user will want better..... maybe they will want davinci resolve.... or flame... or smoke....

Let them make that choice later. Most likely they will...
Click to expand...

i understand the premise behind tiered pricing. i think it's possible to overextend the premise though.
 
Last edited:
I completely agree with Timur - this camera is a steal of a price to shoot 1080P with all the features of a real video camera, that offers a "true" Super 35mm sensor, PL mount (supporting any mount), and the option to shoot RAW if you want it, all for only $13/14k !?!?

Complaining about a priced option makes no sense, you either want it or your don't. Sony made it flexible, and this is a fantastic idea. If you don't like the camera or its price, there are not alot of other options in this league other than RED, and definitely not everyone needs or wants 4k and the workflow that comes along with it.

The only thing bumming me out about this camera is the fact it won't over crank in full HD 1920x1080 resolution. Damn.
 
starcentral said:
I completely agree with Timur - this camera is a steal of a price to shoot 1080P with all the features of a real video camera, that offers a "true" Super 35mm sensor, PL mount (supporting any mount), and the option to shoot RAW if you want it, all for only $13/14k !?!?

Complaining about a priced option makes no sense, you either want it or your don't. Sony made it flexible, and this is a fantastic idea. If you don't like the camera or its price, there are not alot of other options in this league other than RED, and definitely not everyone needs or wants 4k and the workflow that comes along with it.

The only thing bumming me out about this camera is the fact it won't over crank in full HD 1920x1080 resolution. Damn.
Click to expand...


you can with dual link. i don't believe you can do 720p/60p in log either. only with dual link at 1080.
 
Douglass, I went on your website to get a feel for the type of work you want to do - i think you'll be more than happy with the Sony F3 recording to the Ki Pro Mini or the nanoflash without needing s-log. I don't think you need s-log if you're stuff is going to look punchy with crushed blacks. I'm happy this discussion came out - forces us all to learn more about our sides of the issue. You just saved yourself $4,000!

one thing though - s log opens up the colorspace a lot more and gives the camera much more natural looking colors. I am in love with the colors you get out of s log. I just did a job for MTV for this reason.
 
Last edited:
eddavid said:
Douglass, I went on your website to get a feel for the type of work you want to do - i think you'll be more than happy with the Sony F3 recording to the Ki Pro Mini or the nanoflash without needing s-log. I don't think you need s-log if you're stuff is going to look punchy with crushed blacks. I'm happy this discussion came out - forces us all to learn more about our sides of the issue. You just saved yourself $4,000!

one thing though - s log opens up the colorspace a lot more and gives the camera much more natural looking colors. I am in love with the colors you get out of s log. I just did a job for MTV for this reason.
Click to expand...
Most of what is on my website was shot HDSLR or HVX200 with Nikon Lenses. If I wanted to get the same quality or look I don't have to invest $20k - $25k. Those customers will never see the difference.
I am working on pre production for an Indie feature that I'll be directing in about a month or two. I started my research about a month ago and I probably know more about this camera than some of the people that own it.
That is why I crack up when I hear that Slog is the same as RAW (like RED RAW). I provably won't needs Slog since 95% of it will be interior control illumination, but what if?
You made a comment "s log opens up the colorspace a lot more and gives the camera much more natural looking colors" I haven't seen anything with natural looking color. That was the reason for this thread to begin with.
I asked someone that has the camera w/Slog to shoot a test. I still have hope that if used correctly, Slog can reproduce the range that it promises it can do.
Any one in the Miami area that owns the camera with Slog call me if you want to test it in my studio.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top