FS7: waveform monitor in cine EI on SDI out

I

icarusfilm

Veteran
I'm seeing the waveform monitor on my oled monitor connected via sdi2. It seems to show values independantly of the Lut meaning when I switch the lut off it looks the same.

can somone confirm this?
 
icarusfilm said:
What Im saying is I have the Waveform also with the lut on in the monitor.
Click to expand...

I think that what Osslund meant was that the WFM shows values of the underlaying S-log signal, even when the SDI / HDMI is set to output a signal with LUT applied to it, which confirms your observation.
 
Last edited:
I already had this in january discussed here.
WFM is shown only via Sdi/HDMi out, when a LUT is applied.
And yes, it seems to show the values without the LUT.

For me, this is not a "hardware limitation" as Sony told us, but this
is an issue where we can't tell which values are being recorded at all.

I am very familiar with any form of waveform or at least histogram, that
FS100/700 was giving me. When I bought the FS7, I did while being told
it has a "real" WFM. Nobody told me, it doesn't work in the cameras most
cinematic mode, which is cineEI with LUT on my display.

I'm gonna write emails to Sony every month, reporting "issues" with my camera.
The WFM vs. LUT thing is one of them. Please feel free to do the same.
When the WFM is showing up on the SDI/HDMi outs, it should be possible to
have this on the internal display, too!
 
Honestly I would forget LUTs inside the camera.

If you want to see LUTs purchase an external monitor that supports them.

You can fight Sony or learn to be happy with a LUTless, camera.

S
 
I use LUTs frequently, as they introduce the "best" way for me to get
extraordinary ooc-footage.
Some friends kept using the cinegammas which I find awful compared.

And I like using cine EI with better control... I need LUTs for that!
 
I solved this issue by using my Ikan D7W connected to SDI2 with a LUT engaged. The monitor have RGB parade so it's easy to check exposure and colour balance. But Sony should fix a lot of things with regards to LUTs and the video signal monitor inside the FS7.
 
Erik Wittbusch said:
I use LUTs frequently, as they introduce the "best" way for me to get
extraordinary ooc-footage.
Some friends kept using the cinegammas which I find awful compared.

And I like using cine EI with better control... I need LUTs for that!
Click to expand...

Reocording those LUTs? Yuck. I have scene files in custom mode that not only look better (in my opinion) than any of the built-in LUTs, but it completely eliminates all the side effects and workarounds that come from trying to use LUTs and exposure tools at the same time. There is so much more control over the image in custom to get an excellent look onboard the camera, especially when my goal is to avoid grading or only lightly grade in post.
 
Guys, I don't think there is a "best" way to use a camera.

One loves his picture profiles, one loves log, one wants LUTs.
Each way delivers special advantages and disadvantages.


I want SGamut3.cine/ SLog3 with the ability to have a LUT on my monitor.
That' how Sony advertised the FS7 and it was told me during the first
presenstation. It was never mentioned that it doesn't really work and I should
fiddle with PP again. No!

To buy another item doesn't solve the problem for me. I bought the FS7 for
what it is and not for what I can make it to be with additional stuff like monitors,
rigs, baseplates, bigger shoulder support or whatever you might like.

That's how I used the FS100/700 before with all it's quirks. I wanted to upgrade
to a 10bit better codec camera where I don't need to adjust the profile each time
and have that "knee" in the gamma that makes awful highlights.

There's no need to explain, how superiour any workflow is. I didn't buy the camera
for it's great ooc look only. I bought it, because it can give me the ability to have
a professional rec-post-workflow, that was reserved to 20k $ cameras before.
If I really want to have the best ooc-look, I'd buy a Canon C-Series anytime over
the Sony videoish cameras.

Don't get me wrong: I'm happy with what I can achieve - even without the camera
working as advertised. SGamut3.cine/SLog3 is really stunning in my eyes.
I have all the possibilities in post, that I need.
But: I have spoken and emailed with one of the Sony Broadcast & Cinematography Specialists
several times and it was said that it is supposed to work like I want it, but they can't guarantee
anything at this time. I think I know it will work in the next camera, because they didn't check
that when they build the FS7. Is it my fault?
 
I'm right there with you Erik. Great camera but could Sony please just get it to what they advertised. Luts don't work with WFM that is a big problem and because the WFM is fed to SDI/HDMI outs with luts on it can't be a processor issue. Just like the 180deg bug these fixes should have been a priority as the magenta was. I don't care about new features I want the ones I paid for already as advertised.
 
Doug Jensen said:
Reocording those LUTs? Yuck. I have scene files in custom mode that not only look better (in my opinion) than any of the built-in LUTs, but it completely eliminates all the side effects and workarounds that come from trying to use LUTs and exposure tools at the same time. There is so much more control over the image in custom to get an excellent look onboard the camera, especially when my goal is to avoid grading or only lightly grade in post.
Click to expand...

It is clear that Custom is your preferred mode when using FS7. But can you actually imagine this is not everybody's preference?
 
Of course I can, but what is your point? Did I say anyone had to agree? Geez, what is your problem with someone expressing an OPINION?
An opinion that might open someone else's eyes to a different way of working with the camera that solves some of the headaches they are experiencing. I don't get your point.
 
this has nothing to do with workflow or who likes or prefers which setting...if an external monitor can show the WFM with LUTs enabled i don't see any reason why that should not work on the viewfinder....simple...this is not a feature, it's a problem....other then the promise of 4K this was the one big bug that i thought would get fixed in fw 2.0...
 
BTW:
If anybody thinks he got control over his picture with scene files,
you better check, what kind of control LUTs can give you.

It's no comparison! I build my looks in DaVInci Resolve and have tons
of controls. Name it, it's there.
Then I export my LUT and put it in the camera.

That's what a modern workflow can be.
Man, I simply love it.

And I believe that this is the future and not a straight separation between ENG and cinematic work.
That's the past for me. I came from a film school, where we did doco with 16mm Arris and Sony's
Beta/Beta SX/Digibeta cameras. Do I have to tell you what I liked more?

Now we are back where cinematic footage can be done with small one-man-band videocameras in
a way, I never dreamed of. Fantastic times, aren't they?

Now, give me WFM and independed LUTs at the same time (NR + 2k center scan accepted, too!!)
and that's all I ever want.
 
Erik, would you be interested in sending me one of your LUTs so I can try it? Whether I like it or not, I would treat it as your intellectual property and not use it after my testing (without your permission) or share it with anyone else. I would love the opportunity to see how someone's custom LUT compares to what can be done with the paint menus. Also, if your LUT requires any special processing or grading in post to make it work, I'd want to be sure I had those instructions as well. I know the built-in LUTs suck because I've tried them all, but a custom LUT created outside the camera is another story.
 
Doug Jensen said:
Of course I can, but what is your point? Did I say anyone had to agree? Geez, what is your problem with someone expressing an OPINION?
An opinion that might open someone else's eyes to a different way of working with the camera that solves some of the headaches they are experiencing. I don't get your point.
Click to expand...

In many of your posts you tend to trivialize the issues other users have with either the implementation of some features or with obvious bugs. Every time someone wants to use the camera in a different way you are using it, you make it sound like their expectations are wrong or naive. My point was that because you are using the Custom mode primarily you are not looking objectively at the current state of FS7. That's all. I respect your choice in how you are using the camera, there is definitely a lot everyone can learn from you and your results are great, but can you recognize that others may want to use it in a different (still professional) way and have different needs?
 
Erik Wittbusch said:
BTW:
If anybody thinks he got control over his picture with scene files,
you better check, what kind of control LUTs can give you.

It's no comparison! I build my looks in DaVInci Resolve and have tons
of controls. Name it, it's there.
Then I export my LUT and put it in the camera.

That's what a modern workflow can be.
Man, I simply love it.

And I believe that this is the future and not a straight separation between ENG and cinematic work.
That's the past for me. I came from a film school, where we did doco with 16mm Arris and Sony's
Beta/Beta SX/Digibeta cameras. Do I have to tell you what I liked more?

Now we are back where cinematic footage can be done with small one-man-band videocameras in
a way, I never dreamed of. Fantastic times, aren't they?

Now, give me WFM and independed LUTs at the same time (NR + 2k center scan accepted, too!!)
and that's all I ever want.
Click to expand...

Having done all the whining about the FW 2.0 disappointment and implementation of some features in FS7 camera , I'll say this (not sarcastically): finally I realize there is a benefit of having a bad WFM - it is so small, badly marked, its resolutions is so terrible and it plays "hide and seek" games all the time that it makes it so much easier for me to decide to forget about it altogether! Even the cheapest external onboard monitor with this feature will have a much better, bigger, better marked WFM which will show the levels of the signal it is fed with. Just saying, I'm not excusing Sony at all, but it is simply time to use an external WFM (or use internal zebras) - the implemented one is so sh***y that it is better to forget about it!
 
broughtonfilm said:
In many of your posts you tend to trivialize the issues other users have with either the implementation of some features or with obvious bugs. Every time someone wants to use the camera in a different way you are using it, you make it sound like their expectations are wrong or naive. My point was that because you are using the Custom mode primarily you are not looking objectively at the current state of FS7. That's all. I respect your choice in how you are using the camera, there is definitely a lot everyone can learn from you and your results are great, but can you recognize that others may want to use it in a different (still professional) way and have different needs?
Click to expand...

As I said, everyone is entilted to an opinion, thank you for expressing yours. Some people take offense when other people have strong opinions that don't agree with their own. I get that, but I would never tell someone to stifle themselves just because I didn't want to hear what they had to say. I would expect them to argue their point of view, rather than telling the other person to pipe down. And just because I have strong feelings one way or the other, in no way invalidates the opinions or methods of others. I'll never understand why some people react that way when they hear something they don't like, but it seems to be a fact of life today.


BTW, my suggesting alternative methods of working with the camera to overcome it's shortcomings should not be taken as "tiviializing" the issue it has Yes, they exist and they should be fixed. But I can either cry and ***** and moan or I can get work done with the piece of gear in my hands right now. I prefer to get work done and hope things will change later. If that means adjusting the way I would like ideally like to work, then I do it. The camera will never be perfect.
 
Last edited:
Doug Jensen said:
Erik, would you be interested in sending me one of your LUTs so I can try it? Whether I like it or not, I would treat it as your intellectual property and not use it after my testing (without your permission) or share it with anyone else. I would love the opportunity to see how someone's custom LUT compares to what can be done with the paint menus. Also, if your LUT requires any special processing or grading in post to make it work, I'd want to be sure I had those instructions as well. I know the built-in LUTs suck because I've tried them all, but a custom LUT created outside the camera is another story.
Click to expand...

You got PM.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top