Tye's Sony Rant

[Robin R Probyn]

If you re-read my breakdown earlier of the things I don't like about the camera, they will fill in this detail. I don't feel its worth while re-explaining anything.

 

What I will say is this, maybe in Europe and Asia, this camera is used more. Here in Hollywood California, the camera is not used to the same level as it's counterparts. Thus, there aren't very many local resources. Even the rental house (Alan Gordon Enterprises) confessed to me as I picked up the equipment, how unused the stuff was.

 

Finally, why I used the word prosumer. In my mind, a prosumer camera is a mid-range (price wise) camera, with consumer camera traits (MPEG recording, ENG features, etc) with professional functionality. To me a truly professional camera uses technology that's incompatible with your home windows computer and is made for a specific task, not a swiss-army knife.

 

 

Ok well before I go and bang my head against the nearest wall.. you are for sure .. without any shadow of a doubt.. the only cameraman .. from Oscar winner to amateur train spotting video guy.. that would class the F55 as a prosumer camera.. made all the more colorful that your own camera is a BM pocket .. and as you confess yourself you usually beg, borrowing or stealing gear for your shoots.. :) shine on you crazy diamond !

[Robin R Probyn]

"I had a quick play in Resolve, and the first thing the scopes told me was that your log image is significantly underexposed. His skintones are sitting around 38 IRE, which is darker than middle grey on SLOG3 (so over a stop underexposed for regular caucasian skintone).

 

THIS !!! is what Ive said all along mate.. DONT underexpose LOG.. not just Slog.. any log.. do that on an Alexa,Dragon .. Panavision .. you will have the same problem.. lucky for you the noise levels are LOW .. and your mistake can be saved.. again I,ll say it.. read up about LOG and how to shoot for it.. its not like 709.. worry about your shadows not your highlights..

 

Maybe you want to employ Mark to shoot and grade your next production.. stick with the directing ... just a thought ..

Edited March 8, 2017 by Robin R Probyn

[Tyler Purcell]

Cool, thanks Tye. The finished image looks like nice neutral result. Can you explain what your problems with it are?

Yea, the finished image was made from the LUT the DIT and I developed. The DIT couldn't get any of the base DaVinci LUT's to work. It has zero correction on top if it and this is what we used for all of the material as a base.

 

The final piece looks so different due to graphics overlays and such, I simply grabbed a still of the output from DaVinci used to make the proxy files.

 

My problem? I actually picked a good shot! The client complained due to the noise in the image. Honestly, the bad stuff is all green screen. I will try to nab a shot of that next. Yes, it's underexposed slightly, because on the scopes we saw clipping in the reflections on the vertical beams behind the actor. Since we didn't have time to resolve it on set, backing the stop off just a tiny bit resolved it, we just went with it. There are many cases like this throughout the production, but I underexpose stuff a stop to preserve highlights all the time and never get this much noise.

 

That said, the noise levels are very low on the Sonys, so you can boost it up a stop without any real objectionable issues. I did a super-simple grade on your .jpeg:

The noise levels were unimpressive in my opinion. Having just wrapped a Red Dragon shoot using the same ISO (1600) and heavily underexposing the RED show due to the look it gives, I was unimpressed with the Sony's noise level.

 

Nice job on the correction tho!

 

Here are some Dragon shots... 1600 ISO. These are still grabs from our proxy files, ZERO correction. Base LUT I think Cine Gamma 4 maybe?.

 

 

 

[Robin R Probyn]

Native ISO of the F55 is NOT.. 1600.. its 1250.. adding to your under exposure... . you had checked out this camera and knew how to use it.. your DIT couldn't find any LUTs to work.. I see a theme here.. Mark did all of that and more in 30 seconds..

 

Why are you under exposing LOG.. you should be doing the opposite .. under expose LOG = noise.. low data down there man.. sorry but you haven't grasped what LOG means..

 

But now we heard a very important fact totally left out of your rant.. all the bad stuff was green screen.. but you have shot alot of green screen Im sure in Hollywood.. .... and no doubt an expert..got to be a crap camera for sure..

 

Man.. this is bad for my blood pressure .. Im off for a pint of Gin.. enough ..

Edited March 8, 2017 by Robin R Probyn

[Stuart Brereton]

Wait, suit the medium I'm working with? When I light, I don't do anything special for the medium... film or digital, for CCD or CMOS, for Alexa vs F55. In my eyes, if you light a scene, you should be able to put ANY CAMERA in that scene and shoot with it.

 

So what you're saying is that because I'm using a Sony and not a Dragon, Alexa, URSA, or 16/35... I should completely change my lighting style to fit the camera body? Sorry... that's not me mate. I

Well, that's exactly where you're going wrong. There are substantial differences between cameras, which need to be taken into account when lighting. Different native ISO, dynamic range, and signal to noise ratios all have considerable influence on how you should approach your lighting. It's the same with film. No-one would light negative stock the same way they lit for reversal. Even switching between slow and fast stock requires a slightly different approach. You yourself, in another current thread, have said that 16mm and 35mm need to be treated differently because of limitations in post.

 

I'm sorry Tyler, but once again it seems like you don't know what you're talking about, and are blaming your poor results on a camera system that you don't understand, and are unwilling to learn.

[Tyler Purcell]

Ok I dug up the problem shots.

Again, original uncolored Slog file vs base REC709 LUT we made on set. I only keyed in a background so you could see how a completed shot would look like. What you don't see is the noise in the blacks. I don't know why, but the still grabs from DaVinci are knocking a lot of it down, compared to my grading monitor OR the viewing screen on DaVinci.

 

 

[Adrian Sierkowski]

Can i ask, Tyler, on set were you using the build in M-Lut to light these scenes?

[Robin R Probyn]

Because you under exposed it.. simple answer ... green screen and shooting LOG isnt always the best match.. due to how the data is distributed on a log curve .. and Slog3 is the same as Log C.. .. LOG is good for DR only really.. with GS.. its probably better to shoot Hyper gamma or even REC709.. with this simple set up

Edited March 8, 2017 by Robin R Probyn

[Tyler Purcell]

Well, that's exactly where you're going wrong. There are substantial differences between cameras, which need to be taken into account when lighting.

Again, as I've said in this thread many times, I can pickup an Alexa, Dragon, Ursa, 16mm/35mm cameras (modern color negative is assumed as we're not living in 1963) and use the same lighting techniques.

 

I pickup the Sony cameras and I have to "adjust" my technique because the camera somehow doesn't allow me to use the same tricks I normally use? Damn thing won't even allow me to set the appropriate color temp!

[Adrian Sierkowski]

It's not a question of techniques, e.g. 3 point lighting or hair lighting or whatever, but it is however a question of exposure techniques, e.g. not under-exposing LOG images, much as you wouldn't under-expose color neg, or as you wouldn't over-expose Beta SP or not using a 12:1 contrast ratio on color reversal and expecting to hold all the information in the highlights and the low lights.

Whether or not you use hard light or soft light, 3/4 back light, or a flat frontal key doesn't matter so long as you properly record the information to whichever medium you're on.

[Tyler Purcell]

Can i ask, Tyler, on set were you using the build in M-Lut to light these scenes?

So here is how it worked on set...

 

We did use the base M-lut. We calibrated the monitors at the rental house. We put the scopes on the monitors and exposed based on the scopes.

 

I'm use to using a histogram and zebra stripes set at 75% for my exposing. Those two things plus focus assist, are my standard tools, next to a meter of course. On this show I used the meter a few times, but not much. There were only a few instances where I felt the lighting could have been improved and wanted to check with the meter.

 

On this shoot, I paid a lot of attention to the monitors because on the F5 shoot we did last year for the same client, there was some highlight clipping issues I couldn't bring back in post. Knowing these cameras have issues with blown out highlights, I wanted to be extra cautious. So we lit very evenly and tried to keep down highlights. Any time we were mixing daylight and HMI, we had scrims in frames we'd put between the daylight and the scene being shot, knocking down the stop a few to prevent clipping issues.

 

I'll say this much, on set the show looked perfectly exposed, both on the scopes and in my viewfinder. I never saw a frame of footage until the end of the 2nd day out of 4. So I was really in the black and when I saw the first stuff, I freaked out and immediately made a change, but it was too late. The files looked nothing like the monitors, exposure wise.

 

Again, never had this problem with any other camera... but then again, I never look at the monitors on set, I'm always behind the lens.

[Mark Kenfield]

Tye, here's the greenscreen shot with nothing more than Davinci's built-in SLOG2 LC709A LUT and a 20% chroma noise reduction to get those red/green specs on her jacket.

Forget 30 seconds, this is literally a 10 second job, and the result (without so much as a primary correction) is (in my opinion at least) vastly superior to the Oompa Loompa effect going on your finished sample.

And this is with literally ZERO colour correction, just a built-in LUT in Davinci. Did you guys not try that when you were testing workflows or grading?

[Adrian Sierkowski]

I think that the scopes were your problem as you were looking @ the REC image done quickly in camera, whereas in SLOG those highlights would've held. This is a problem on the Alexa and the Red as well if you're looking at scopes on a chain after the in camera LUT has been applied. Normally i'd've tried to look at everything in SLOG right before recording for any worrysome highlights. I do the same thing with LOG-C and RedLog. For future and for readers here i find it really helps.

[Tyler Purcell]

Whether or not you use hard light or soft light, 3/4 back light, or a flat frontal key doesn't matter so long as you properly record the information to whichever medium you're on.

I agree completely... and this wasn't a "creative" choice, this was a "mistake" based on things LOOKING ok on set.

[Tyler Purcell]

Tye, here's the greenscreen shot with nothing more than Davinci's built-in SLOG2 LC709A LUT and a 20% chroma noise reduction to get those red/green specs on her jacket.

I don't have DaVinci studio... I haven't spent the money on a license because I'm buying an URSA and it comes with one... so I've been holding off. So I can't use the noise reduction features.

 

Yes we tried the built in SLog 2 lut, but on the DIT's system and MY system, it doesn't do much, nothing like your system does. I can't imagine two systems having the same issues with LUTS (both running 12.5.3). Mind you, I use the built-in LUT's for everything all day long and never seen this problem, they always work perfectly for every other camera.

 

Only thing I can think of is that working with the XAVC files, the LUT does something else then what it does with a JPEG file... That's the only explanation. Maybe the JPEG export from DaVinci doesn't give you exactly what the file looks like? Don't know... haven't tried to test this before.

[Tyler Purcell]

This is a problem on the Alexa and the Red as well if you're looking at scopes on a chain after the in camera LUT has been applied. Normally i'd've tried to look at everything in SLOG right before recording for any worrysome highlights. I do the same thing with LOG-C and RedLog. For future and for readers here i find it really helps.

It's a good tip.

[Mark Kenfield]

I don't have DaVinci studio... I haven't spent the money on a license because I'm buying an URSA and it comes with one... so I've been holding off. So I can't use the noise reduction features.

 

Yes we tried the built in SLog 2 lut, but on the DIT's system and MY system, it doesn't do much, nothing like your system does. I can't imagine two systems having the same issues with LUTS (both running 12.5.3). Mind you, I use the built-in LUT's for everything all day long and never seen this problem, they always work perfectly for every other camera.

 

Only thing I can think of is that working with the XAVC files, the LUT does something else then what it does with a JPEG file... That's the only explanation.

 

Very strange. I was actually very surprised that the .jpeg seems to respond to the LUT exactly the same way I'd expect XAVC, SR444 or Sony RAW from the cameras to.

 

Possibly something in the Davinci project settings? (the 'Mac Preview' mode, or a colour space setting)

[Adrian Sierkowski]

My SLOG lut also worked fine. ..

 

 

 

 

literally just a 1D Input LUT and a quick little tweak on the wheels.

[Tyler Purcell]

Yea, I just put the JPEG back into DaVinci and the LUT works fine! But on the raw XAVC file, it doesn't do much at all.

[Mark Kenfield]

Very weird. If you can export a .dpx frame from the raw XAVC material, I can test that out for you.

[Tyler Purcell]

Just tested, it too works fine.

[Stuart Brereton]

Weird that a professional colorist should have such trouble applying a LUT.

[Tyler Purcell]

Weird that a professional colorist should have such trouble applying a LUT.

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

[Robin R Probyn]

Tyler.. as usual with a very small amount of digging.. your problems are all of your own making.. you dont have the right post equipment.. or a basic knowledge of LOG.. you should never under expose it unless your in the arctic on a sunny day..

User error as I said all along.. people are negative about your posts because you DO at all times profess to be an expert in just about any field under the sun.. from Astro physic,s to suba diving to mastery of all camera,s to being a consultant on major hollywood and all aspects of post.. you have claimed so many times.. your wasting peoples time.. and giving students duff info.. just read the last posts from Mark and Adrian.. honestly its embarrassing .. you dont know what your doing.. yet you blame everything around you..and even diss the work of major DP,s.. I mean its just Kafka ..

 

What about just learning a bit and less blowing hot air .. its annoying and makes the forum look bad..

[Robin R Probyn]

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..