I’ve seen this many times on web content where the person is in front of a large window. The assumption from another professional is that there was no ND to gel the glass and not enough light to compensate. So the final image looks very flat, but you can see all of the detail that would be lost if transformed. For web stuff it honestly doesn’t bother me much. When I see it on network stuff I’ll admit it’s harder to forgive knowing the money they have to spend (and many times don’t).
FX6: The Sony ILME-FX6V Owners Club
- Thread starter Ben Scott
- Start date
drboffa
Well-known member
In a previous career I was an art historian for several years, so things like "taste" and "finished/unfinished" are concepts I probably think about far too often...
One example I like to consider is the status (or value) of "drawings": For much of the period I studied (Late Middle Ages / Renaissance) drawings were a means to an end rather than an end in itself. Most were thrown away or—at best—kept within a particular studio or circulated among a group of artists as models and learning aids. Collecting drawings was not valued—the finished painting/sculpture/building/etc. was the point! Why would anyone care about the uncorrected, unfinished, preparatory works? (I'm exaggerating a bit, but not much.) For a variety of reasons which I won't get into here, this started to shift by the later 15th and early 16th century, and collectors and patrons started collecting drawings—and even going so far as to request drawings from certain artists!
That said, the bias against works on paper (or preparatory works) persisted for centuries, in some capacity. Works on paper/parchment (like manuscripts) were sometimes all that collectors could get their hands on in the late 19th/early 20th centuries (especially American collectors, if I recall correctly), and while they often weren't highly desirable to many collectors at the time they're *very* valued today.
So: tastes change. Often dramatically.
To give one more example: I'll never forget finding a 19th-century guidebook referring to Michelangelo's David—arguably the most famous and celebrated sculpture of the Western world—as "not one of [the artist's] finest works.”
And this is ignoring the extent to which many modern viewers (and artists like Rodin) have not only come to appreciate Michelangelo's unfinished (i.e., "log") sculptures, but even to imitate them...
One example I like to consider is the status (or value) of "drawings": For much of the period I studied (Late Middle Ages / Renaissance) drawings were a means to an end rather than an end in itself. Most were thrown away or—at best—kept within a particular studio or circulated among a group of artists as models and learning aids. Collecting drawings was not valued—the finished painting/sculpture/building/etc. was the point! Why would anyone care about the uncorrected, unfinished, preparatory works? (I'm exaggerating a bit, but not much.) For a variety of reasons which I won't get into here, this started to shift by the later 15th and early 16th century, and collectors and patrons started collecting drawings—and even going so far as to request drawings from certain artists!
That said, the bias against works on paper (or preparatory works) persisted for centuries, in some capacity. Works on paper/parchment (like manuscripts) were sometimes all that collectors could get their hands on in the late 19th/early 20th centuries (especially American collectors, if I recall correctly), and while they often weren't highly desirable to many collectors at the time they're *very* valued today.
So: tastes change. Often dramatically.
To give one more example: I'll never forget finding a 19th-century guidebook referring to Michelangelo's David—arguably the most famous and celebrated sculpture of the Western world—as "not one of [the artist's] finest works.”
And this is ignoring the extent to which many modern viewers (and artists like Rodin) have not only come to appreciate Michelangelo's unfinished (i.e., "log") sculptures, but even to imitate them...
Ben Scott
Veteran
I don't feel it's analogous. Log is an acquisition format not a delivery format. It is never meant to be viewed let alone finalised in that log space. It's like people collecting negatives of film sequences and never producing an answer print from them. An untransformed log colour space image is all over the place when displayed from device to device.
This is why other camera formats than Sony contain metadata/sidecar files with regards a colour space for viewing in order to stop people getting used to staring at log footage all day and becoming acclimatised to it.
Again, this is a very different issue to liking and enjoying a muted/flat aesthetic.
I'm also not saying anyone is wrong to want to leave their webcam as such.
I'm just making the point that not transforming footage acquired in a log colour to the colour space of the intended delivery colour space is a mistake.
This is why other camera formats than Sony contain metadata/sidecar files with regards a colour space for viewing in order to stop people getting used to staring at log footage all day and becoming acclimatised to it.
Again, this is a very different issue to liking and enjoying a muted/flat aesthetic.
I'm also not saying anyone is wrong to want to leave their webcam as such.
I'm just making the point that not transforming footage acquired in a log colour to the colour space of the intended delivery colour space is a mistake.
ahalpert
Major Contributor
Yeah there's a difference between listening to a rehearsal of the Unfinished Symphony and reading the sheet music. One sounds like music and the other describes how the music should sound. (Sure, some keen readers of sheet music could have a music-like experience while reading it and imagining the music...)
drboffa
Well-known member
I think all your points are valid, but I'd only add (especially with regard to the above quote) that this is so only because people have agreed that it is so.
Broadly speaking I think your points stand; but if we admit for different perspectives on acquisition/delivery (e.g., what if different user experiences across displays are the *intent*?) then using uncorrected log (or camera negatives) can be a valid choice.
drboffa
Well-known member
And yet we read plays all the time! It's a standard part of the curriculum in many schools. This—to me—is WAY more "incorrect" than leaving log footage as is. Plays are much more than just the words on the page! (Which is not to deny the very real pleasure that people may experience from reading, rather than watching, a play.)
Ben Scott
Veteran
Can you give a single example of this being the case? Yes it is hypothetically possible but I feel it's somewhat disingenuous to attribute lofty ideals of high artistic intent to people clearly making a mistake or not getting what log is or not caring or having 'log blindness' from not editing in the correct colour space.
Log camera formats were designed to be an intermediate format. Not because the end users agreed that's what they were. A way to squeeze as much DR into a signal container as possible to be unsqueezed and remapped correctly depending on the delivery criteria.
Now you can use a toilet brush as a toothbrush if you like, and a piece of dog **** on the roadside can be art if the light hits it right and its audience feels it is art. But ask a colourist their thoughts on this. They are the artists of colour in our field.
drboffa
Well-known member
Now we're getting into the intentional fallacy... :smile:
I absolutely CANNOT give you an example—but from a historical perspective that's not necessarily the point. In art history we study and appreciate the "detritus" of earlier generations all the time (i.e., stuff that was not intended to be seen, appreciated, studied, etc.).
Again, I agree with your main points broadly. I'm just taking a different perspective: I truly can imagine a future timeline where log footage, camera tests, scraps of films, etc., (i.e., prep work not meant for viewing) is appreciated for its inherent beauty, independent of what the filmmakers intended it to be.
Maybe some of us who appreciate log are just ahead of the curve (terrible, terrible pun).
But anyway: really my point is that this is all subjective, and can only ever be subjective—although if we want to keep working it makes sense to pay attention to the "professionals," as you note—like colorists.
Doug Jensen
Carbonite Member
I'd never allow ungraded LOG into a finished production, but a webcam is a different story and it does have a nice look. Either my computer or the BM Web Presenter makes the footage look darker and more contrasty than what the camera is actually putting out, so in a sense it is not a pure unadulterated S-LOG3 signal by the time it goes down the series of tubes. I don't know where/why the contrast is being added because I don't care enough to bother investigating. But I do know a super shallow DOF LOG shot in a semi-outdoors location from the FX6 (plus the slight grade my other hardware gives it) looks a hell of a lot better than the fake background replacements and other stuff the other meeting participants are using. A creative choice . . . but not art.
ahalpert
Major Contributor
more like singing the sheet music acapella. less like marveling at the shapes on the page. do some people frame and hang sheet music? maybe. but for the sheer aesthetic of it? doubtful
Doug Jensen
Carbonite Member
I have the Canon 200-400 f/4 with built-in 1.4x extender so I can cover anything from 200mm to 560mm without changing lenses. It has has very good manual focusing and is really the only SLR lens I can stand using for shooting video. On the FX6 iris and stabilization work but not AF -- if that was of any interest to you. It really is a gorgeous lens that has paid for itself many times over on my F55 and FS7 and now it finds new life on the full-frame FX6.
ahalpert
Major Contributor
surely there won't be a super-telephoto C line lens from Sony any time soon? more like a 70-200...
drboffa
Well-known member
Tamron just came out with a 150-500mm that looks very promising: https://www.newsshooter.com/2021/04/23/tamron-150-500mm-f5-6-7-di-vc-vxd-11-20mm-f-2-8-di-iii-a-rxd/
I've been using an adapted Sigma 150-600 (Canon mount) with pretty good results. It's not the sharpest lens at 600 (and it's softer than the Sigma 100-400mm at 400) but the reach is excellent, especially if you're willing to crop in to S35 mode in HD. And I've been getting pretty decent AF via the Sigma MC-11 adapter.
That said: if you're willing to spend about twice as much as the above lenses I think you'll be very happy with the Sony 100-400.
Ben Scott
Veteran
Ben Scott
Veteran
I wish I could help. All I have is the Canon FD 100-300 which is super super cheap on ebay but not the greatest quality. Will do in a pinch for the rare times I need one though.
jmone
Well-known member
I think you are right, I'm expecting they will rehouse the F2.8 24-70, and 70-200 --> the C line, like they did for the 16-35.
jmone
Well-known member
The new Tamron does look promising but all the reviews barely touch on it's use on a Video Cam like the FX6 (I found one that covered focus breathing for 2 sec!).... and absolutely no Sony 100-400 vs Tamron 150-500 comparison for video use.