FS7: waveform monitor in cine EI on SDI out

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...
davinci is a free download and honestly if you are no used to working with LUTs in your post workflow, i am not sure how much sense it makes to start to work with LUTs in the camera....that said, there are tons of LUTs out there, davinci just makes it really easy to export them and to get them into the camera (actually sony makes that a little tricky, but that is a different story...)
i use the Kojicolor LUT's as a starting point but there are tons out there....
 
broughtonfilm said:
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!
Click to expand...
this made me smile...because it is so right! i would probably use the histogram more then anything...i am not sure how useable the waveform on the viewfinder is in reality....
but i would still rather have the option to turn it off then not have the option to turn it on....
 
I use Resolve every day. In fact, I have the paid version. And LUTs are almost always a part of my grading, even when I've used my primary go-to Scene File in custom mode. But I have no use for LUTs onboard the camera even when I'm shooting Cine EI or RAW (with my F55). I apologize in advance if this offends anyone who likes LUTs onboard the camera.
 
Doug Jensen said:
I use Resolve every day. In fact, I have the paid version. And LUTs are almost always a part of my grading, even when I've used my primary go-to Scene File in custom mode. But I have no use for LUTs onboard the camera even when I'm shooting Cine EI or RAW (with my F55). I apologize in advance if this offends anyone who likes LUTs onboard the camera.
Click to expand...

Does your instructional video for FS7 cover your LUT-less workflow in Cine EI and / or RAW? I'm asking because I'm curious what your recommended workflow without onboard LUT's is. I'm saying it seriously, I don't doubt it. This is quite different than a method described by Alister Chapman in his Ultimate Guide for Cine EI on the Sony PXW-FS7. Personally, I sometimes don't mind looking at the LOG image in my viewfinder because that eliminates a lot of confusion (with ISO rating, WFM, dynamic range, etc.) but I also find a method of using one of REC709 LUT's for quick judging of exposure and better focusing to be very effective. Doesn't looking at LOG image in EVF make it hard to see focus (in a situation where you don't have an external monitor)? I'm interested to know what your method is.
 
Last edited:
Believe it or not, I tried not to be too opinionated in the video on whether to use LUTs generated by the camera. There is a time and a place for everything, especially when you need to show a client a better looking image on a monitor. I talk about the limitations of their use, and I explain the reasons why I would never use a LUT in the viewfinder, but then it is up to everyone to decide for themselves what works best. Alister and I disagree on a lot of things, and this is one of the big ones. I certainly do not need a LUT to set exposure, and I demonstrate step-by-step how easy it is not to use a LUT. A LUT just gets in the way of allowing me to see the true exposure of the S-LOG or RAW. I need to nail that exposure perfectly everytime and LUTs interfere. Yes, you can work around the LUTs, but it's far easier for me just to take it out of the equation in the first place. I truly prefer looking at the un-LUTed log image. It's so pure and clean.

As for looking at a LOG image in the viewfinder to helpe with focusing, I don't think it makes a damn bit of difference if peaking is set properly. I don't seem to have any trouble at all, and if i can do it, anyone can.

The bottom line is that I explain all my techniques in my video and make the case for them vs. other ways of doing things. People can choose to use them or not, but I don't hold anything back in what I teach. And I'm not a hyporcrite who doesn't actaully do what they say they do . . . like a certain Brit. And unlike some people, hopefully I have the footage to show I get acceptable results with very little fussing around in post. https://vimeo.com/122814885
 
Doug Jensen said:
Believe it or not, I tried not to be too opinionated in the video on whether to use LUTs generated by the camera. There is a time and a place for everything, especially when you need to show a client a better looking image on a monitor. I talk about the limitations of their use, and I explain the reasons why I would never use a LUT in the viewfinder, but then it is up to everyone to decide for themselves what works best. Alister and I disagree on a lot of things, and this is one of the big ones. I certainly do not need a LUT to set exposure, and I demonstrate step-by-step how easy it is not to use a LUT. A LUT just gets in the way of allowing me to see the true exposure of the S-LOG or RAW. I need to nail that exposure perfectly everytime and LUTs interfere. Yes, you can work around the LUTs, but it's far easier for me just to take it out of the equation in the first place. I truly prefer looking at the un-LUTed log image. It's so pure and clean.

As for looking at a LOG image in the viewfinder to helpe with focusing, I don't think it makes a damn bit of difference if peaking is set properly. I don't seem to have any trouble at all, and if i can do it, anyone can.

The bottom line is that I explain all my techniques in my video and make the case for them vs. other ways of doing things. People can choose to use them or not, but I don't hold anything back in what I teach. And I'm not a hyporcrite who doesn't actaully do what they say they do . . . like a certain Brit. And unlike some people, hopefully I have the footage to show I get acceptable results with very little fussing around in post. https://vimeo.com/122814885
Click to expand...

i also don't have a problem with focus looking at the log in the finder, i do have problems judging the correct exposure though...this is not a sony problem, i had the same issue with my red...histogram or wave form help of course but i still tend to under expose when shooting while looking at log....that might just be me....i also like the pure log but i also know that grading this pure log will give me noise in the shadows when i grade it...
i am confused about your work flow...you shoot custom? obviously with matrix then? add some settings in camera and then grade in davinci (or wherever)? i thought that shooting cine and slog3 gets the cleanest file internal file possible out of the FS7? to me cine and slog3 is pretty much as good as red raw (different but with some advantages and i can live with the disadvatanges) but if i can get an even cleaner file out of the FS7 i will try anything! i tried custom and after comparing it to cine stayed with cine....
using (or shooting with) LUTs in the viewfinder is a personal choice....there are pros and cons and it is pretty easy for everybody to find what works better in which situation for them....i can actually judge exposure better with a LUT enabled (in general) since i know what options i have with that specific LUT in post....and it really helps with clients....
but again: it would really, really help to have histogram/waveforms on as well....i am keeping an eye out for this little thing
 
Here is one of my many takes on LUTs/WFM.

To me it is clear they should both function together and IMO that is an expected part of the spec of the camera.

Personally I shoot LOG and use the WFM.

But with LOG I am giving a poor vision to the director, if I have one, and also find it hard to focus (I really dislike peaking zebras et al on my image)

Another thing about LOG is that it is hard to evaluate colour.

So now Im in a situation of being interested in the new DP5 monitor which should add LUTs to please a director, help me evaluate colour and focus.

(BTW I have no problem with exposure.. using the onboard WFM)

So Ill 'throw away' the included monitor, and spend another $1.5g on a replacement, lose an SDi slot and now have to worry about having to charge/own two brands of batteries.

That is basically a shame considering that IMO the camera should do all that a DP5 would do at no cost.

S
 
Pretty much on the same boat, Morgan.

I'm happy if I can avoid to spend another 1-3k on additional instruments that should
work with the FS7.
I don't like to add any kind of additional stuff to the setup of the camera.
Personally, I think the ergonomics are what they are and if I don't like them I should
have bought another camera.
 
Last edited:
Well - I like the camera form - The F5 seems dated with the XLR out the side and all and no speedbooster.

So the camera is great. To be 'perfect' it needs IMO a DP5.. which is a shame.

But either way the camera is still the camera I would choose.

I think the disappointment is that it doesn't feel like Sony are 'on our side'

I think it is a problem of over speccing and under delivering. If they said. No LUT support I would have still bought it!

S
 
Last edited:
After having shot hours of reality, commercials, corporate and what not with my FS7 I learned to trust my eyes to pick the right white balance and always view with the LC709A LUT while shooting. To me this gives me comfort that I have something that looks good recorded. Coming from the two stops underexpose on my F3 rule with S-log it's liberating to shoot with S-log3. I discovered that basically you can expose until the highlight warning comes up and back down until it disappears.

I have and external monitor with RGB parade which I also use just to make sure values are within reason but I usually only check it in the beginning of a shoot while setting the basic light.

To me the issue is really the way the LUT view disappears when going into S&Q or during playback. The obvious solution is to use an external monitor with LUT support and don't use LUTs for the SDI/HDMI outputs.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top