Tye's Sony Rant

[Tyler Purcell]

You have no right to slander me Robin. It's rude, it's unprofessional and this is not the first time you've done it.

 

The only person making this place unprofessional is you.

[Robin R Probyn]

You have no right to slander me Robin. It's rude, it's unprofessional and this is not the first time you've done it.

 

The only person making this place unprofessional is you.

 

 

Yeah you could be right there.. I will not comment on your posts anymore.. its my mistake..

[Adrian Sierkowski]

PS.. Mark you probably know.. Adrain maybe not .. the F5 and F55 have quite a convenient trick for a quick check of your exposure in Slog when using a MLUT in the VF.. in assign there is a Hi/Low function... press once gives you an image in your VF of the highlight s..and low for the shadow,s.. not meters just a visual.. handy to quickly see how things are holding..

good trick for next time i'm on the camera-- i'll have to give it a whirl. Literally spent about 10 min with it before we started setting up the first shot (i know, bad form on me!) but got the look the director was after with my meter and a little err to open up 1/2 a stop.

[Robin R Probyn]

Its an option not known much as its only activated in assign menu.. but its quite a good one for running around shoots.. the VF scopes/WFM Zebra,s will give a reading for the LUTed image always.. unlike some camera,s.. a double edged sword.. but personally I,d rather have reading for what Im looking at.. you can always just switch off the MLUT using the LCD.. to get your log readings in the VF.. but you can have the MLUT off for your SDI out to a monitor too as some people like to work..

 

They are very easy camera,s really.. just put REC 709 in the VF.. work as you would or have been for years in the REC709 world.. and your under lying LOG will be fine.. highlights will appear blown out of course as your looking at a 709 image.. but you dont have to stop down off the 709 image.. as you know I'm sure.. or just give the hi/low assign button a press.. its amazing to see how much the highlights are holding compared to the MLUT image.. there were alot of "problems" with Slog .. all over the Sony f5/55 sites too in the early days. too.. people from 709 land had to learn the opposite from what they had had drilled into them.. dont worry about the high lights.. you have masses there.. worry about your shadows.. and that they couldn't "grade" in edit software.. its just understanding LOG.. last thing you want to do is under expose it.. unless your in a mirror maze in the arctic in full sun..same for any log footage.. actually come to think of it.. I did shoot in the Arctic in the sun..with an F5/Slog3.cine.. exposing for native ISO 2000 and everything, even then was fine..

[Adrian Sierkowski]

Mirror maze would've broken the camera though .

[Robin R Probyn]

Possibly on reflection..

[Stuart Brereton]

I never claimed to be a professional colorist. I even mentioned earlier in the thread, I'm just learning how to color.

Actually, you claimed to have colored over a dozen shows just in 2016. In other threads you have stated that you color everything that you cut. As you've also said that 80% of your work is in post, I take that to mean that you.work regularly as a colorist. Is this not true?

[Phil Rhodes]

I would caution all parties to this debate that there are many equally-valid variations on "work" and "colorist."

 

There are very few controlled terms in the film industry.

 

P

[David Mullen ASC]

Time to stop dogpiling on Tyler, I think everyone has made their counterarguments regarding the viability of the Sony F55, it doesn't have to get personal.

[Tyler Purcell]

Actually, you claimed to have colored over a dozen shows just in 2016. In other threads you have stated that you color everything that you cut. As you've also said that 80% of your work is in post, I take that to mean that you.work regularly as a colorist. Is this not true?

Sure, but it doesn't make me a colorist. I really didn't start learning how to color until I got my blackmagic pocket cameras in 2013. I started with Apple Color, which didn't have enough coloring range to deal with the LOG files from the Pocket Camera. Back then I was running such an old OS due to older software I wanted to keep going, that I couldn't use DaVinci. I was doing all the coloring on professional stuff using Avid Symphony up to that point.

 

I got a job to cut/color a trailer in 2015 and it was enough money to upgrade my bay to work with DaVinci properly. So I got the software, a low-end monitor that was good enough when calibrated and graphics card that allowed me to run DaVinci. Once I learned it enough, I started getting coloring jobs. I did a few short narratives, few industrials and a documentary in 2015.

 

In 2016, I was super busy and basically edited/colored the entire year, over a dozen projects, which was an awesome learning experience. It did take me a while to color Cowgirls my first narrative feature as a colorist, but I took my time and it came out ok. Nothing to write home about, but I learned a lot on that show. I starting learning how to use the effects in DaVinci to create a particular look and it wasn't bad for a first attempt at a feature.

 

I figure two more years of this work (2017/2018), maybe I'll know enough to call myself a colorist... maybe? I'm a hands on guy and I understand lighting from the perspective of being on set. Translating those skills into viewing something on a monitor and turing knobs to correct, has been the biggest challenge for me.

[Phil Rhodes]

Actually, it sort of does make you a colorist, if you're being paid to use Resolve. I have become a bit militant about these attempts to protect certain job titles. It is not reasonable that a mere few hundred people worldwide should be reserved a particular job titled just to protect their feelings, when many other people do similar work in very different circumstances and end up struggling for a term to describe what they do.

 

This came up in a recent meeting with some other people who work mainly on high-end TV drama. "Ha," cackled one of them, at the mention of someone pulling focus on a production he didn't think was up to his standards. "Call herself a focus puller, does she?" Well, actually, yes, because she was controlling focus on a camera and being paid to do so. What the hell else are we supposed to call her?

 

I don't see a big problem with incompetence on film sets (there was, during the film-to-digital changeover, and sometimes at a very high level, but that's rare noe). I therefore don't think there's a very common problem with people selling their abilities as something other than they are. This is to some extent why who you know is such a big deal: the only way to tell who's good at what is to have experience of their behaviour. Different categories of production are far too amorphous and changeable to make any formalised categorisation of crew skills possible.

 

As an aside, I'm also becoming aware that some of the productions which are looked down on as being low end actually make some very stern and specific demands of crew, and it generates an expertise all of its own that higher-end functionaries, with their narrowly-defined silo thinking, would very likely lack.

 

P

[Bruce Greene]

Hi Tyler,

 

I've only shot on a Sony A7RII, so my sony cinema shooting is limited to that....

 

On the A7RII, iso 800 recorded in camera in sLOG, is kind of a fail. Not enough data. It looks ok, if one over exposes by one stop as there's way too much compression artifacts in the deep shadows.

 

We quickly switched to recording with a Ninja (or other Japanese warrior recorder:) in prores, and all is way better at ISO 800. I think this recorder only cost about $1000 and you can load viewing LUTs into it, which was really helpful.

 

So, your particular problem might have had to do with in-camera recording with too much compression.

 

I'd also like to ask you Tyler, when you say you shot at ISO 800, did you set the iris using a light meter? Or by the monitor on set? I think it's also possible that you could have been shooting ISO 1600 in reality if you were not using a light meter. IOW, you were underexposing by eye. When I shoot with the Alexa, I'm almost always using my meter, but we do grade everything shot by shot. I can only think of one shot, from a few years ago, where it was underexposed too much. But the sun was setting, and we were running 3 cameras, with not the best communications in the Panic Hour :)

 

FWIW, we shot a couple months back with the URSAmini. I was not impressed. Image quality is ok (limited dynamic range), camera build is what you'd expect for such a price. Viewfinder delay is a real issue with operating the camera. Lens flange distance was way off, focus scale on the lenses were useless.

[Robin R Probyn]

Apologies to all .. Im sorry that I let my posts get personal.. I just cant stand these inaccuracies .. based on poor user knowledge.. drives me nuts.. my problem.. will drink a large Gin before any future postings ..

[Robin R Probyn]

Hi Tyler,

 

I've only shot on a Sony A7RII, so my sony cinema shooting is limited to that....

 

On the A7RII, iso 800 recorded in camera in sLOG, is kind of a fail. Not enough data. It looks ok, if one over exposes by one stop as there's way too much compression artifacts in the deep shadows.

 

We quickly switched to recording with a Ninja (or other Japanese warrior recorder:) in prores, and all is way better at ISO 800. I think this recorder only cost about $1000 and you can load viewing LUTs into it, which was really helpful.

 

So, your particular problem might have had to do with in-camera recording with too much compression.

 

I'd also like to ask you Tyler, when you say you shot at ISO 800, did you set the iris using a light meter? Or by the monitor on set? I think it's also possible that you could have been shooting ISO 1600 in reality if you were not using a light meter. IOW, you were underexposing by eye. When I shoot with the Alexa, I'm almost always using my meter, but we do grade everything shot by shot. I can only think of one shot, from a few years ago, where it was underexposed too much. But the sun was setting, and we were running 3 cameras, with not the best communications in the Panic Hour :)

 

FWIW, we shot a couple months back with the URSAmini. I was not impressed. Image quality is ok (limited dynamic range), camera build is what you'd expect for such a price. Viewfinder delay is a real issue with operating the camera. Lens flange distance was way off, focus scale on the lenses were useless.

 

Hi Bruce

 

Yes the 8bit recoding of LOG in the Sony A,s.. XAVC S LongGOP is a consumer level codec.. and not great at all for LOG.. being 8bit for starters.. let alone the other stuff.. compared to the F55 global shutter 10bit XAVC Intra frame.. its really chalk and cheese.. I believe Tyler said he used 1600 ISO .. Sony claim 1250 ISO as native for the F55.. and in Cine EI the camera itself will only record at this ISO.. regardless of any other settings.. so 1600 would be under exposing a bit..

[Tyler Purcell]

I've only shot on a Sony A7RII, so my sony cinema shooting is limited to that....

 

On the A7RII, iso 800 recorded in camera in sLOG, is kind of a fail. Not enough data. It looks ok, if one over exposes by one stop as there's way too much compression artifacts in the deep shadows.

Hey Bruce,

 

Yea, the A7SMKII is a low-bit rate camera. The F55 is 410Mbps iFrame 10 bit 4:2:2 capture, compared to 50Mbps 8 bit 4:2:0 on the A7SMKII. I've never been a fan of MPEG, but iFrame 410 is OK...

 

I'd also like to ask you Tyler, when you say you shot at ISO 800, did you set the iris using a light meter? Or by the monitor on set?

I shot at 800 and 1600 ISO. I didn't use the meter much, I used the electronic aids to help generate my exposure, which is what I use on every other digital camera. I did use the meter every once in a while to help gauge/balance lighting in a given scene based on the exposure I already set the electronic way.

 

I think it's also possible that you could have been shooting ISO 1600 in reality if you were not using a light meter. IOW, you were underexposing by eye.

Gosh I wish it was that simple. Small "mistakes" like that are great to figure out so you can make sure they don't happen again. Alas, I do believe the problem was explained earlier... the base REC709 LUT was deceiving and because the camera doesn't have a LOG based histogram (which is what I'm use to) the waveform scope is based on the Rec709 image. I exposed based on how good it looked in the monitor and the scope matched the look for every shot, so I didn't think twice. It's just, the files looked nothing like the on-set monitoring. Again, been shooting digital cinema since the F900 and never once came across this issue. It also wasn't a camera body specific issue, as we had an A and B camera, both cameras suffered from the same issue. Had I known there was an issue, I would have gone into the menu's and tried to correct it, but I didn't know there was an issue until it was too late. The DIT simply corrected the shots, without telling me how underexposed they were. Again, I should have looked at them myself day one, but we were so swamped, I didn't have any time and we were kicked out of every building at the end of each day, so the DIT station was already shut down every night when I went to check the files. I was assured by the DIT, things were fine, but they weren't.

 

Again, fast shoot, quick turn around and me trusting people. I tried mate... I tried!

 

When I shoot with the Alexa, I'm almost always using my meter, but we do grade everything shot by shot. I can only think of one shot, from a few years ago, where it was underexposed too much. But the sun was setting, and we were running 3 cameras, with not the best communications in the Panic Hour :)

And ya know what, using a meter is what smart people do. I had a three person crew... Me (DP/1st camera), 2nd camera and a AC/DIT. On the last two days, we brought in a full-time AC, who helped considerably, but he didn't know the camera systems. So our brains were dribbling out of our ears every few minutes, putting out fires and setting up complex dolly shots. I rarely had time to get off the chair of the dolly, as the A camera was entirely shot via a Fisher 11. If my first AC was good at metering, I would have used him to meter for me, but I gave him the meter once and he kinda didn't quite understand how to use it. Being an educator, I explained how to use it, but there is only so much education you can do on a set that's trying to shoot 6 days worth of content in 4 days.

 

Here is a little clip of how things were shot on set. Notice I'm a one man band, pulling focus and operating on some tricky camera moves.

 

https://www.dropbox.com/s/4qcfn9emhpm0qix/onset_demo.mov?dl=0

[Robin R Probyn]

Last post I promise..

 

The MLUT is only mapping the levels.. if you know grey for Slog and REC709.. you can work it out pretty easy..

 

Its very easy to turn off the MLUT to see your slog levels..for the side LCD to assign.. 3 seconds.. or have Slog out to a monitor,on camera or not.. you have 4 x SDHI out to use.. you can even have an slog MLUT if you want..

 

Reading off an LOG WFM pretty much all your readings will be lower than 50%.. and bunched together.. quite hard to work that way.

 

In order to use EI and say change your ISO rating from 2000 to 1000.. you need a MLUT to see this change and open the Iris.. this is the same for Alexa and any camera.. its not a fault of the F55.. there is MLUT plainly marked in the LCD panel in Camera mode.. its 2 or 3 seconds to turn on /off.. if you want to do that too..

 

If you use LOG more you will get a feel from experience for how much the highlights can hold in LOG.. be it Slog3 or LOG C.. being actually the same curve .. and that its noise in the shadows that your enemy.. and you can blast away all day with a 709 MLUT in your VF..

[Adrian Sierkowski]

I dunno Robyn that SLOG3 and LogC are the same curve-- they're similar, but in my experience not the same (though i may be wrong on that) do you have an example of their mapping you can throw out?

[Robin R Probyn]

Sorry I dont have the graphics .. but should google able.. they are almost identical.. both based on the cineon curve.. Slog2 is different.. but Slog3 is purposely the same ..

[Adrian Sierkowski]

hmm cool didn't know that; i'll look into it more then i get off of set today (using the less than fun CanonLog)

[Jay Young]

Yeah I was about to say, does anyone know of a major feature using anything Blackmagic as an A-cam? Upcoming or anything? Even television maybe?

 

John Brawley is using two? on "Queens"? If his flicker posts, and the guy I talked to at PV Dallas are to be believed. I believe that's the name of it. Its a Panavision show, and the URSA Mini looks quite comical at the end of an 11:1 zoom.

 

Still, he bought two, so I guess that's saying something.

[Robin R Probyn]

Adrian.. here is a link to an article by Art Adams.. its a bit different as its about colour space too.. but basically he talks about using Arri LogC to 709 LUT on Sony Slog3.cine footage and how it looks virtually the same.. this was another reason Sony made Slog3 the same as LogC.. there is already a well established post grade workflow for it.. etc the same LUTs can be used..

 

The subset Slog3.cine primaries are also very easy to work with .. Slog2 has a big spike into the green and alot of people were having trouble with it.. so slog3 changed that.. for people who wanted an easier grade.. its really quite hard to not get it right ..

 

http://www.dvinfo.net/article/acquisition/cinealta/craziness-using-an-alexa-lut-on-f55-footage.html

[Phil Rhodes]

Blackmagic's "film" mode is reportedly pretty similar to SLog3.

 

Do we have a standard emerging?!

[Adrian Sierkowski]

god i hope so.

And thanks on the link Robyn. I vaguely recall this article, so i'm going to re-read.

[Phil Rhodes]

[Robin R Probyn]

"In addition Slog3 has a near straight line curve. This means that in post production it’s easier to grade as adjustments to one part of the image will have a similar effect to other parts of the image. It’s also very, very close to Cineon and to Arri Log C and in many cases LUT and grades designed for these gammas will also work pretty well with SLog3."

 

​Above is a quote from Alister Chapman.. A well know Sony techie guru type.. his site has alot of good tech info