FS7: Swans at Greenwich Cove

Doug Jensen

Doug Jensen

Carbonite Member
More testing of the FS7 in Cine EI mode. Shot this morning and edited this evening.



http://vimeo.com/112875813




Camera: Sony PXW-FS7
Mode: Cine EI
Codec: 3840x2160 / 23.98P / XAVC-I
Lens: Red 300mm
Grading: DaVinci Resolve
Edited in UHD with Adobe Premiere and rendered to HD with Adobe Media Encoder
 
Thank you everyone for the compliments. I am using a PL adapter from Hot Rod Cameras that originally was part of the rig for my FS100, but has now found new life after 3 years of sitting unused in a box since I sold the FS100.
 
A couple of people PM'd me and asked about getting some ungraded original files from me. I can't do that, but I did decide to post an ungraded version of the video. This is how the S-LOG3 looks right straight out of the camera.
[FONT=Calibri, Verdana, Helvetica, Arial]
https://vimeo.com/112926205
Password: SWAN
[/FONT]
 
Liam Hall said:
Maybe raising your EI would have done the trick...
Click to expand...

No, raising the EI would not make any difference at all. EI is just an illusion and makes no difference whatsoever in the video that is actually recorded. It doesn't matter whether EI is set to 800 or 3200, the recorded video remains precisely the same. The problem is that S-LOG3 does not handled highlights well, with barely any gradiations at all. So when you have something like the fine detail found in bright white bird feathers, it just starts to mush altogether. S-LOG2 does not suffer from this problem.
 
Last edited:
You're misunderstanding my point Doug.

Raising the EI would make the image in your viewfinder brighter (if using a mLUT) by moving the mid data point, therefore you would lower your exposure creating more headroom and protecting your highlights. So, you will have affected the recorded image, albeit it is still recorded at ISO2000.

Of course, the problem with the FS7 is you can't have the waveform and use an mLUT at the same time without recording them internally. That's why I asked how you are exposing.
 
Liam Hall said:
You're misunderstanding my point Doug.

Raising the EI would make the image in your viewfinder brighter (if using a mLUT) by moving the mid data point, therefore you would lower your exposure creating more headroom and protecting your highlights. So, you will have affected the recorded image, albeit it is still recorded at ISO2000.

Of course, the problem with the FS7 is you can't have the waveform and use an mLUT at the same time without recording them internally. That's why I asked how you are exposing.
Click to expand...

This is the single hardest part to wrap my head around coming from adjusting ISOs on cameras. Raising the EI lowers the midpoint protecting highlights and lowering the EI will give you more shadow room. I'm still reading everything I can try and get my hands on but I think I need to just get out and shoot with in and see how it applies in the real world.
 
RatLabProductions said:
This is the single hardest part to wrap my head around coming from adjusting ISOs on cameras. Raising the EI lowers the midpoint protecting highlights and lowering the EI will give you more shadow room. I'm still reading everything I can try and get my hands on but I think I need to just get out and shoot with in and see how it applies in the real world.
Click to expand...

Don't worry, it trips most people up. I avoided it for the first two weeks I had the camera and just left it on EI2000, but once you've shot with it, it makes perfect sense.
 
Liam Hall said:
You're misunderstanding my point Doug.

Raising the EI would make the image in your viewfinder brighter (if using a mLUT) by moving the mid data point, therefore you would lower your exposure creating more headroom and protecting your highlights. So, you will have affected the recorded image, albeit it is still recorded at ISO2000. Of course, the problem with the FS7 is you can't have the waveform and use an mLUT at the same time without recording them internally. That's why I asked how you are exposing.
Click to expand...

I'm not exposing from a LUT or "how it looks" in the viewfinder. A LUT is smoke and mirrors that would just get in the way of determining what the real exposure is. If, for some reason, I choose to underexpose or overexpose, I don't need a LUT to hlep me out, anymore than I would turn the brightness down on monitor to trick me into overexposing. Smoke and mirrors. Besides, underexposing in a situation such as with the swans would be a huge mistake because the noise levels would go through the roof when you try to bring the white feathers up to their proper levels. S-LOG3 is not designed for this scenario, period.
 
RatLabProductions said:
This is the single hardest part to wrap my head around coming from adjusting ISOs on cameras. Raising the EI lowers the midpoint protecting highlights and lowering the EI will give you more shadow room. I'm still reading everything I can try and get my hands on but I think I need to just get out and shoot with in and see how it applies in the real world.
Click to expand...

Just don't forget that what you actually record -- never changes. So the results you get in post are pretty much locked in no matter what antics you do with EI in the field.
 
Liam Hall said:
Don't worry, it trips most people up. I avoided it for the first two weeks I had the camera and just left it on EI2000, but once you've shot with it, it makes perfect sense.
Click to expand...

Ya I need to get more miles on it. Lucky I have a few weeks till I need to use it for something other than testing. I have a gig next week using the C300 it will be interesting to get back on that one after having the FS7 for a week or two.

Doug Jensen said:
I'm not exposing from a LUT or "how it looks" in the viewfinder. A LUT is smoke and mirrors that would just get in the way of determining what the real exposure is. If, for some reason, I choose to underexpose or overexpose, I don't need a LUT to hlep me out, anymore than I would turn the brightness down on monitor to trick me into overexposing. Smoke and mirrors. Besides, underexposing in a situation such as with the swans would be a huge mistake because the noise levels would go through the roof when you try to bring the white feathers up to their proper levels. S-LOG3 is not designed for this scenario, period.
Click to expand...

I am new to Slog but my plan is to use the Sony Luts as the first step de-log so in that case having the monitor lut on should be a pretty good indication of what the shot will look like after delog wouldn't it? I've been liking the colour of the 709A lut as a good starting place in post so I plan to pop that into my monitor and use zebras till they get the wave form sorted with luts.
 
Doug Jensen said:
I'm not exposing from a LUT or "how it looks" in the viewfinder. A LUT is smoke and mirrors that would just get in the way of determining what the real exposure is. If, for some reason, I choose to underexpose or overexpose, I don't need a LUT to hlep me out, anymore than I would turn the brightness down on monitor to trick me into overexposing. Smoke and mirrors. Besides, underexposing in a situation such as with the swans would be a huge mistake because the noise levels would go through the roof when you try to bring the white feathers up to their proper levels. S-LOG3 is not designed for this scenario, period.
Click to expand...


In CineEI mode, you're not simply judging how it looks on a monitor. That would be daft. You'd be using it in conjunction with a waveform, at the moment zebras are the only option on the FS7, which isn't great...

Again, I asked you how you worked out your exposures, not sure why you don't want to share that info? But if we are going to talk about underexposing or overexposing it would be helpful to know how you arrive at what you perceive to be the correct exposure especially in light of the fact that you're not happy with the rendition of the feathers. To my eye at least it looks like you've clipped their wings (pun intended) and pulling the exposure down a touch would have helped.
 
If you want to look at a LUT while shooting so you have a more pleasing picture, that is a perfectly valid use for LUTs and is exactly what they are intended for. But when it come to setting the exposure, you have to factor in whether or not you are looking at a LUT and which one so you still have the proper exposure levels on the underlying S-LOG3 video that is actually being recorded. You need to be aware of the differences between what you are seeing and what you are recording. The last thing you want to do is expose for the LUT, and find out later that the S-LOG3 is off the mark. Personally, I prefer not to use a LUT so I am always looking at what is really being recorded. The image quality in the viewfinder is of no concern to me at the time of shooting. It could be B&W for all I care.
 
Doug Jensen said:
I'm not exposing from a LUT or "how it looks" in the viewfinder. A LUT is smoke and mirrors that would just get in the way of determining what the real exposure is. If, for some reason, I choose to underexpose or overexpose, I don't need a LUT to hlep me out, anymore than I would turn the brightness down on monitor to trick me into overexposing. Smoke and mirrors. Besides, underexposing in a situation such as with the swans would be a huge mistake because the noise levels would go through the roof when you try to bring the white feathers up to their proper levels. S-LOG3 is not designed for this scenario, period.
Click to expand...

If you have a shave a mirror is a good thing - I cant think of a time when smoking is a good thing! But LUTs are not smoke and mirrors - well maybe they are, but they are useful.

To me LUT and CineEI seem sensible and critical to enjoying the camera..

We 'know' that with the 800 LUT your white value should be at 90 - so exposing with a lut on is no more random than exposing with no LUT on. Additionally as the LUT 'stretches' the signal it is easier to evaluate on the WFM - especially if it is a tiny one in the corner of an EVF - so ones exposure may be more accurate with a LUT.

CineEI. Ok I guess we agree that we want the cleanest file while protecting important (non specular) highlights.

We therefore want to feed the 'negative' the most light.

Ideally we would therefore keep the EI on the lowest setting (500) and expose for our LUTTED whites at 90 using zebra or WFM.

BUT

When it starts getting dark an EI of 500 will barely be visible on your monitor - this may be accurate - but it is a night mare to view, ergo we need to change CineEI to a higher value.

Therefore I would suggest that Using both LUTs and EI will improve your shooting experience.

S
 
Liam Hall said:
To my eye at least it looks like you've clipped their wings (pun intended) and pulling the exposure down a touch would have helped.
Click to expand...

If the wings looked clipped, it is because of how the video had to be handled in post. I assure you there is nothing out of range in the ungraded footage. Nothing even close.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top