The Indie Economics of SLOG and the Sony PMW-F3. Is it worth it?

I agree with some of it, not all of it, some misleading information in it in my opinion. Not wrong, just should be worded better. few examples

f3 at a 400 is it's cleanest point, but you lose dynamic range in the highlights lowering the iso all the way. In turn you are trading highlights, and getting a different look. Even an Alexa isn't perfectly perfectly free of noise until you drop the iso to around the same number. But you accept the hairline worth of it for all that even dynamic range you get on the top and bottom.

As much as I'd wish EVERYBODY would use cinema glass, and that only, sometimes the real indie production just can't swing it, which is fine, everybody at this point knows the pitfalls of still glass. but it also has been a workhorse for the indie community since they proved they could do it. and it's stillt he most economical choice to get a lens in front of the camera. If you know what you are doing with it, you can get a stunning picture quality too, just minus the nuances and mechanical features of cinema grade glass. which a lot of ppl covet, but hey, budget is budget.

still debatable if the Alexa is more sensitive. I still stand by my claim that f3 is the most sensitive 1080p camera on the market at the moment. that's me, and my opinion though.

a lot of everything else i think it's spot on though. the camera is this strange frankenstein marriage bastard child. so much of it screams prosumer, it pisses me off, but the high end features of it scream top end cinema class camera. Interesting times we live in.
 
The F3 is 800 iso natiive. The numbers don't lie. Yes its cleaner @ 580iso, but you lose a 1/2 stop up top. No good.
 
I would also respectfully disagree about the native ISO. Everything that I have seen from Sony and have been told by Sony for press purposes indicates a native ISO of 800, not 400. And I would not scoff at XDCAM as a blanket statement. XDCAM 422 to a Nanoflash looks pretty good and I would scarcely call it "color crushing." But he does raise some important points and all of us who write professionally make errors, oversights, and opinionated statements.
 
I have read that before. (Maybe from you.) It seems though that Cine1 is much, much darker than Cine4, to where it may actually be 400 ISO.
 
Cine gamma is ment to be dark. Its like slog, you grade it brighter, but expose lower.
 
if you look at andy's video on abelcine blog, you'll see that the iso are as stated, 0 db is 800. the different cine gammas are just different curves that put your exposure level at different places on your picture. some offering more highlight production, some offering to see more detail in the shadows. you just have to think of it has

if standard 709 is giving you let's say (making up numbers right now) 200% of what the sensor really captures, and s log does 800%, different standard curves just extract different portions of your 200% of the sensor information. so new curves look like different exposures because it's extracting and interpreting a different set of information off the sensor. while something like s log gives you the "full range" of everything the sensor can put out, thrown together in a broadcast safe space.

but ISO is ISO. curves don't effect your ISO. ISO effect your curve. the real question is why sony put inaccurate information in their camera, and is it gonna be fixed on log firmware update.
 
I still can't figure that one out. Its a full stop off. If you light for the "ISO" you will be overexposed. So bizzare. I leave it at dB, and just know that 0dB is 800.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top