Sony A7SIII = $3500, 10-bit 4K120p internal, 16-bit 4K60p RAW out

99.8% of clients don't know from Video-ish, this is a DP thing that mostly only we can see. The success of REDs look alone is testimony to this.
I've seen RED footage that looks filmic like an Arri but it had post stuff done to get it there. Arris look the most un-video-ish, but it would take
one of you more extreme techno nerds to explain why ;-) Is it the sensor? The DSP? The DeBayering?

I don't know what causes a digital image to appear more "Film-like" or less. I'm just glad that we have variety. I miss the film look, especially
when I look at episodics I worked on like NYPD Blue and Veronica Mars. Unlike most cameras and shooters in 2020, I don't think having a film-like
grain structure on a digital camera is a fail, I like it, that's probably why I like the Canons and the Fujis, they are not incredibly and precisely clean like the A7 SIII
appears to be. It's weird though, when I shot the FX9, I didn't see that ultra clean, razor sharp look either. But I 100% see it on the A7 SIII.
 
ahalpert said:
But isn't the 12-, 14-, or 16-bit ADC just a conversion of linear sensor data? Doesn't the LOG encoding happen after, but the DR is limited by (among other things) the bit-depth of the ADC?
Click to expand...

Yes linear raw is limited to bit depth of the ADC. But the A7SIII raw still picture is 14 bit. That's clue for a 14 bit sensor. How much is used is not clear. But HDMI output doesn't not support 14 bit, therefore 16 bit output is truncated or dithered, however dithering makes no sense, it is a 1 bit technique. Regardless, I don't know why Sony would bother with it, they are not doing the processing, Atomos is. As long as Atomos receives 14 significant bits, with the last two bits truncated, they are receiving all the sensor raw the camera is capable of, and HDMI compliance is satisfied. HDMI does support 12 bit, so if the sensor was only 12 bit why not just output that like they did on the FS5?

12 bit linear raw readout on the ASIII is deja' moo. We've heard that bull before.
 
puredrifting said:
99.8% of clients don't know from Video-ish, this is a DP thing that mostly only we can see. The success of REDs look alone is testimony to this. I've seen RED footage that looks filmic like an Arri but it had post stuff done to get it there. Arris look the most un-video-ish, but it would take one of you more extreme techno nerds to explain why ;-) Is it the sensor? The DSP? The DeBayering? ...
Click to expand...
ARRI Alexa has the original (Sony) Cinetone built in with all of the above + the OLPF. Considering that Fuji has the film look LUT on several of their XT cameras, it's probably not that difficult to do from an engineering point of view but requires a visual observation from non-engineers. In other words, someone said, "I want it to look like the Kodak XYZ stock. Can it be done?" Then engineers go to work and try to get as close to it as possible.

Side note - while all cameras differ, most of the 2019-2020 releases are so good that the majority of the difference lies in grading. And, off what I have seen on YouTube, something like the Film Covert Nitrate can emulate a "film look" very well. What "film look" one chooses is personal.
 
With log raw, 12 bits could contain more stops. What log is doing is making a more equitable distribution of the code values between white and black.
 
What about the oversampled Raw, if that's the word?

Not quite the dual readout as an alternate readout, depending on the information in the frame?
 
Anyone remember those Twilight Zone episodes shot on video? We had been watching the series on film and hated this new look. And nighttime soap opera looked nothing like daytime soap opera. Did anyone watching Steve Sabol's NFL films ever confuse it for a live tv broadcast? It's no more complicated than the fact that film was used to tell a story, and told a story better. That's all it could do. Abraham Zapruder's 8mm film told the story of a president's assassination. Video brought the murder of his assassin into our homes on live tv. Which one had the immediacy of reality? Until now, video could not combine its live look with film's color and DR. If you saw the live network broadcast of Dwight Clark's catch in the end zone, you were a part of that event. If you saw it on NFL Films, you saw the retelling of a story.

So the question, can a live look be malleable enough to tell a story, and can a film look have the immediacy of reality tv? You tell me.
 
ahalpert said:
But isn't the 12-, 14-, or 16-bit ADC just a conversion of linear sensor data? Doesn't the LOG encoding happen after, but the DR is limited by (among other things) the bit-depth of the ADC?
Click to expand...

Yes.

Alexa is 12 bit log remember, but processed internally as 24 bit linear then “packed” into 12 bit LOG. (2 x 12 bit exposures into a single 16 bit linear combined image then into 12b log..)

The camera can output a 16 bit lin container, and then the recorder can do with it as it needs to.

Notice I say 16bit “container”...the container might not be full....

JB
 
Tom Roper said:
Yes linear raw is limited to bit depth of the ADC. But the A7SIII raw still picture is 14 bit. That's clue for a 14 bit sensor. How much is used is not clear. But HDMI output doesn't not support 14 bit, therefore 16 bit output is truncated or dithered, however dithering makes no sense, it is a 1 bit technique. Regardless, I don't know why Sony would bother with it, they are not doing the processing, Atomos is. As long as Atomos receives 14 significant bits, with the last two bits truncated, they are receiving all the sensor raw the camera is capable of, and HDMI compliance is satisfied. HDMI does support 12 bit, so if the sensor was only 12 bit why not just output that like they did on the FS5?

12 bit linear raw readout on the ASIII is deja' moo. We've heard that bull before.
Click to expand...

RAW over HDMI protocol is not limited by any of the HDMI video transmission specs, it's purely limited by its available bandwidth and what the camera can output.
 
Tom Roper said:
Anyone remember those Twilight Zone episodes shot on video? We had been watching the series on film and hated this new look. And nighttime soap opera looked nothing like daytime soap opera...
Click to expand...

The daytime soaps still look "video". A few years ago, the Y&R tried to go with a prime time/film visuals but its fans hated it and the show went back to the traditional appearance.

When "OLTL" was picked up by Hulu, the stage sets remained but there was a lot more handheld camera work - and sexier attire for women - including gimbals and stabilizers.

And, prior to its cancellation, the GL went to a mixed look, with a lot of handheld outdoor footage. It was an odd combo but the show was tanking anyway. It may have been worth a shot but it probably aided to the speed of the soap's demise.
 
In Asia, I was never bothered by the "soap" look. And I was never bothered by dubbing or subtitles. While all of those elements definitely make differences, those differences may not mean the same thing to all people all the time. ymmv.
 
....so where do we stand with the bit-depth of the A7SIII ADC?

Is it definitely 12? Or definitely 14? Or is it unclear?
 
Also - can we really trust a reading of 13 stops DR?

We know that the camera can't turn off NR internally (which was how Undone tested it.) The noise floor looks way lower/cleaner than the S1H, for example, in cinema5d's test
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top