Jump to content


Photo

Tips for shooting a feature with an F5 and a7S mk2 together in 4K?


  • Please log in to reply
69 replies to this topic

#21 Robin R Probyn

Robin R Probyn
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2613 posts
  • Cinematographer
  • Tokyo

Posted 31 August 2016 - 07:19 PM

Maybe your footage was shot in Custom mode.. then yes you have to protect your high lights ,.. but LOG its the opposite.. you never want to under expose log.. I dont see how you would ever want to under expose LOG "just a little bit".. there is no compression of highlights in log.. its a straight line.. equal data for each stop .. above grey anyway.. the shadows will give you noise problems.. 


  • 0

#22 Tyler Purcell

Tyler Purcell
  • Sustaining Members
  • 4463 posts
  • Other
  • Los Angeles

Posted 01 September 2016 - 12:02 AM

I don't use a meter when shooting digitally, I use a histogram and zebra set at 70. So I'm just use to protecting my highlights, probably a bit more then most people. "LOG" doesn't make enough of a difference. It actually makes the MPEG noise much stronger because it decreases the signal to noise ratio. I've worked quite a bit with raw recently, just to keep myself up to date on the coloring aspects of it. Even with RAW, I'd rather use a lower ISO and under expose a tiny bit, just when the 70% zebra's are starting to show up, that's the cap of my highlights. So I ignore the cameras native ISO rating and shoot like film. This gives less grain/noise, even when you punch it up. This trick works flawlessly on every camera I've worked with, outside of Sony. The Sony cameras don't like it, but then again, I despise Sony. I'll say this much, the C300MKII stuff I shot, looks perfect, with zero grain/artifacts. Yet the stuff our "cinematographer" shot has been noisy, he shot 2000 ISO outside in broad daylight with 1/64 ND.

With film, I work just the opposite, I use a meter and I saturate the living crap out of it because I know there will be data in the highlights no matter what. I generally run a full stop over exposed on film, sometimes even setting my meter to compensate. Obviously there are occasions when you don't want that look, but generally I prefer the "pop" look it delivers.
  • 0

#23 David Peterson

David Peterson
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 262 posts
  • Cinematographer
  • Auckland, New Zealand.

Posted 01 September 2016 - 12:54 AM

I don't use a meter when shooting digitally, I use a histogram and zebra set at 70. So I'm just use to protecting my highlights, probably a bit more then most people. "LOG" doesn't make enough of a difference. It actually makes the MPEG noise much stronger because it decreases the signal to noise ratio. I've worked quite a bit with raw recently, just to keep myself up to date on the coloring aspects of it. Even with RAW, I'd rather use a lower ISO and under expose a tiny bit, just when the 70% zebra's are starting to show up, that's the cap of my highlights. So I ignore the cameras native ISO rating and shoot like film. This gives less grain/noise, even when you punch it up. This trick works flawlessly on every camera I've worked with, outside of Sony. The Sony cameras don't like it, but then again, I despise Sony. I'll say this much, the C300MKII stuff I shot, looks perfect, with zero grain/artifacts. Yet the stuff our "cinematographer" shot has been noisy, he shot 2000 ISO outside in broad daylight with 1/64 ND.

 

Was he shooting raw with the F5 perhaps?
As I'm looking at the raw F5 footage I did yesterday and thinking it looks kinda noisy, but wondering if maybe that is because it is raw without any noise reduction at all built in.

I'll see how XAVC-I looks tonight.


  • 0

#24 Stuart Brereton

Stuart Brereton
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 3482 posts
  • Cinematographer
  • Los Angeles

Posted 01 September 2016 - 01:03 AM

I don't use a meter when shooting digitally, I use a histogram and zebra set at 70. So I'm just use to protecting my highlights, probably a bit more then most people. "LOG" doesn't make enough of a difference. It actually makes the MPEG noise much stronger because it decreases the signal to noise ratio. I've worked quite a bit with raw recently, just to keep myself up to date on the coloring aspects of it. Even with RAW, I'd rather use a lower ISO and under expose a tiny bit, just when the 70% zebra's are starting to show up, that's the cap of my highlights. So I ignore the cameras native ISO rating and shoot like film. This gives less grain/noise, even when you punch it up. This trick works flawlessly on every camera I've worked with, outside of Sony. The Sony cameras don't like it, but then again, I despise Sony. I'll say this much, the C300MKII stuff I shot, looks perfect, with zero grain/artifacts. Yet the stuff our "cinematographer" shot has been noisy, he shot 2000 ISO outside in broad daylight with 1/64 ND.

With film, I work just the opposite, I use a meter and I saturate the living crap out of it because I know there will be data in the highlights no matter what. I generally run a full stop over exposed on film, sometimes even setting my meter to compensate. Obviously there are occasions when you don't want that look, but generally I prefer the "pop" look it delivers.

I'm confused here. You're talking about MPEG noise when these cameras don't necessarily record in an MPEG codec. Then you say you use a lower ISO (overexpose), but underexpose your images (which makes no sense), ignore the ISO and expose like film.

 

Next paragraph, you say you work the opposite with film.

 

What exactly are you trying to say?


  • 0

#25 Robin R Probyn

Robin R Probyn
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2613 posts
  • Cinematographer
  • Tokyo

Posted 01 September 2016 - 01:55 AM

Tyler 

 

So your not shooting in Cine EI mode.. nor shooting XAVC .. your shooting custom XDCAM 8 bit..?.. or even worse your shooting LOG in 8 bit XDCAM.. and under exposing it.. Yikes.. the other guy is shooting ISO2000 as thats the native ISO of the F5.. plus in Cine EI its locked to that too.. sorry but it does seem yet again you don't know the Sony camera,s or understand LOG curves at all and so you are having troubles.. you cap your highlights at 70% ?.. thats ok but your advising others  with out any knowledge of the camera or LOG set ups.. Arri log.. Canon log all work the same its not a Sony thing.. and the other guys footage  always seems to be crap.. ?


  • 0

#26 Tyler Purcell

Tyler Purcell
  • Sustaining Members
  • 4463 posts
  • Other
  • Los Angeles

Posted 01 September 2016 - 01:57 AM

I'm confused here. You're talking about MPEG noise when these cameras don't necessarily record in an MPEG codec.


The cameras I've been talking about record out of the box in iFrame MPEG. Yes, the FS7 and F5 both have hardware updates to allow additional codec's. I've only seen people equip their cameras with those upgrades on rare occasions. I just used an FS7 with the Pro Res card, but only because I was like "HOLY SHIT" it was a unicorn in the wild!
 

Then you say you use a lower ISO (overexpose), but underexpose your images (which makes no sense),


When I'm shooting, I work at a the lowest ISO I can and I will light more to compensate. However, I will still underexpose a tiny bit, to protect highlights.
 

Next paragraph, you say you work the opposite with film.


With film, I also work at the lowest ISO I can, but I over expose to that particular ISO, but not by much.
  • 0

#27 Tyler Purcell

Tyler Purcell
  • Sustaining Members
  • 4463 posts
  • Other
  • Los Angeles

Posted 01 September 2016 - 01:59 AM

So your not shooting in Cine EI mode.. nor shooting XAVC .. your shooting custom XDCAM 8 bit..?.. or even worse your shooting LOG in 8 bit XDCAM.. and under exposing it.. Yikes.. the other guy is shooting ISO2000 as thats the native ISO of the F5.. plus in Cine EI its locked to that too.. sorry but it does seem yet again you don't know the Sony camera,s or understand LOG curves at all and so you are having troubles.. you cap your highlights at 70% ?.. thats ok but your advising others  with out any knowledge of the camera or LOG set ups.. Arri log.. Canon log all work the same its not a Sony thing.. and the other guys footage  always seems to be crap.. ?


Sorry, I was referencing many different cameras at the same time.
  • 0

#28 Robin R Probyn

Robin R Probyn
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2613 posts
  • Cinematographer
  • Tokyo

Posted 01 September 2016 - 02:01 AM

Tyler totally wrong ..

 

The Fs7 and the F5 have always had XAVC intra.. from new.. straight out of the box.. its not a hardware up date at all.. you really need to get to know the camera you are using or being paid as a cameraman to use..

 

Your only going to get your max DR from native ISO.. tweak a stop or two sure.. thats nuts to have an Alexa/f5/f55 fs7.. any camera with cine EI and LOG and just set it 100 ISO.. no wonder you are losing your highlights..  your capping your highlights at 70% and under exposing in RAW.. let alone LOG ??? you have massive highlight headroom.. there is no knee or roll off.. I think you are shooting RAW and LOG like standard 709 gamma,s.. no wonder you are having problems..

 

And the Sony not being able to use 3rd party accessories ..?? please answer that .. sorry its just totally wrong.. 


Edited by Robin R Probyn, 01 September 2016 - 02:13 AM.

  • 0

#29 Tyler Purcell

Tyler Purcell
  • Sustaining Members
  • 4463 posts
  • Other
  • Los Angeles

Posted 01 September 2016 - 02:11 AM

Tyler totally wrong ..
 
The Fs7 and the F5 have always had XAVC intra.. from new.. straight out of the box..


XAVC is MPEG!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! HELLO!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Your only going to get your max DR from native ISO.. tweak a stop or two sure.. thats nuts to have an Alexa/f5/f55 fs7.. any camera with cine EI and LOG and just set it 100 ISO.. no wonder you are losing your highlights..


I don't have problems with stuff I've shot. I have problems with stuff OTHER people have shot.

And the Sony not being able to use 3rd party accessories ..?? please answer that .. sorry its just totally wrong..


3rd party companies are forced to make special stuff for Sony cameras.
  • 0

#30 Stuart Brereton

Stuart Brereton
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 3482 posts
  • Cinematographer
  • Los Angeles

Posted 01 September 2016 - 02:25 AM

 I have problems with stuff OTHER people have shot.
 

It really is extraordinary how many incompetent DPs you have to deal with. Thank god you are there to deal with their mistakes.


  • 0

#31 Robin R Probyn

Robin R Probyn
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2613 posts
  • Cinematographer
  • Tokyo

Posted 01 September 2016 - 02:26 AM

Yes but XAVC is not the same XDAM setting in those camera,s.. XAVC is very different .. please study the camera a bit..

 

Why is it always the other guys stuff is crap.. mmm?

 

Why are 3rd party co,s forced to make special stuff.. all the threads,BNC..Lemo.. HDMI ,bars etc are all standard .. the Rosette is different thats the only thing.. . none of my 3rd party ass are "specail" in any way to Sony.. a cheese plate will always be camera specific .. as with Arri/RED/Canon all of them.. my shoulder plate is Zacuto Universal.. as the name suggests this works on many camera,s..  

 

Where are you getting all these ideas from man..


Edited by Robin R Probyn, 01 September 2016 - 02:28 AM.

  • 0

#32 Tyler Purcell

Tyler Purcell
  • Sustaining Members
  • 4463 posts
  • Other
  • Los Angeles

Posted 01 September 2016 - 02:31 AM

It really is extraordinary how many incompetent DPs you have to deal with. Thank god you are there to deal with their mistakes.


I have never worked with a good cinematographer. Maybe I'm just too picky.
  • 0

#33 Tyler Purcell

Tyler Purcell
  • Sustaining Members
  • 4463 posts
  • Other
  • Los Angeles

Posted 01 September 2016 - 02:35 AM

Yes but XAVC is not the same XDAM setting in those camera,s.. XAVC is very different .. please study the camera a bit..


Yes, I know and I never mentioned XDCAM anywhere. I'm specifically talking and mentioned many times iFrame, which as you well know is XAVC.
 

Why is it always the other guys stuff is crap.. mmm?


Dude, I shot and serviced Sony for over a decade. I can say anything I want about them.
  • 0

#34 Robin R Probyn

Robin R Probyn
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2613 posts
  • Cinematographer
  • Tokyo

Posted 01 September 2016 - 02:54 AM

I know a guy who has serviced Merc,s for a decade.. but hes not a better driver than Lewis Hamilton .. 

 

If you know what your doing with XAVC LOG or RAW.. which sorry but judging from your exposure methods you don't.. you can achieve a very good picture from XAVC in HD or 4K.. and there are hundreds or more like thousands who are going that.. one of them is my good self..  just go on line and see what has been shot with XAVC.. dont believe a hack like me fair enough .. but there are very experienced DP,s who have shot incredible footage on XAVC even on Fs7,s.. exactly the same camera you had.. are they all crap.. or could it be that...  ?

 

And the 3rd part accessories ?


  • 0

#35 Tyler Purcell

Tyler Purcell
  • Sustaining Members
  • 4463 posts
  • Other
  • Los Angeles

Posted 01 September 2016 - 03:31 AM

If you know what your doing with XAVC LOG or RAW.. which sorry but judging from your exposure methods you don't..


I'm discussing literally dozens of projects, shot over at least 6 years, none of which I've shot. Yes, this year I've had more experiences using modern 4k MPEG cameras, but I stay away from them based on the following experiences:

Unlike your job, MY job is to make the show. I take the footage you shoot and put together what the audience see's and hears. Most of the time I work in Avid and color with Symphony/DaVinci. My workflows are industry standard, based on my editorial experiences working at various top post houses in Hollywood.

So what I see is what I know. I'm not looking at a viewfinder and saying the shot is good. I'm not looking at a monitor on set and saying the shot is good. I'm not looking at a meter and saying shot is good. I'm looking at the final output camera file and having to match that file to other material, which in most cases is shot by the same cinematographer. This requires me to "tweak" the shot material in order for it to be a match.

What I've learned over the years is based on my experience in post, more then it is a perfect setting on set, where you aren't seeing the actual file matched against maybe 600 shots that will compile the final project. All you know is what you're shooting at that very moment, you don't know how it will look in the back end, but I do. Armed with that knowledge and frustration when coloring, trying to meet clients expectations, I've formed my opinion on this matter.

Mind you, I work A LOT with RED and Alexa cameras as well. I also shoot quite a bit with Pro Res cameras, like the one's I own. I use the same workflow with the Pro Res material and I'm happy to say, I rarely have the same issues. Yes there are times when shit happens, like the massive documentary project I took on earlier this year, which was under exposed by at least 3 stops and shot with a Red Epic. It took me days to come up with a workable solution that could be applied to all shots and even then, I will have to re-color once the client is done editing.

I also don't like swiss army knife products at all. I'd say the only thing I own that's like that is my iPhone, it does a lot. All of my cameras have one function. All of my lenses do as well. This is probably why I dislike most digital cameras. My personal digital camera, the Blackmagic Pocket camera, looks fantastic for a $1000 body with $600 piece of glass. In the color suite, I find coloring my pocket cameras to be a piece of cake. I rarely have problems and when I do, it's because I was running and gunning on location and didn't have the time to make it better. I've pushed my pocket cameras where the MPEG cameras fall apart and far greater. Not saying the pocket camera has a better imager per say, just saying when it comes to noise levels and how much luminance and chrominance is in each frame. This goes for the Alexa as well, it's just an amazing looking camera right out of the box, that doesn't require much tweaking to make look awesome.
 

you can achieve a very good picture from XAVC in HD or 4K.. and there are hundreds or more like thousands who are going that.. one of them is my good self..  just go on line and see what has been shot with XAVC.. dont believe a hack like me fair enough .. but there are very experienced DP,s who have shot incredible footage on XAVC even on Fs7,s.. exactly the same camera you had.. are they all crap.. or could it be that...  ?


Well anything looks good streaming 8 bit 4:2:0 50Mbps MPEG. Ohh wait, that's ALL forms of media delivered to the home; internet, satellite, cable, broadcast. So again, how do YOU know what it actually looks like?

I've seen many documentaries and narratives shot with XAVC cameras and they always look like ENG cameras from the 90's. Lots of motion blur, lots of clipped highlights and plenty of noise. Most people use cameras like the FS7 due to it's high ISO setting, so that doesn't help either. I could care less if the audience can see in the dark, I'd rather have less noise on screen.

I proved a few months ago how bad the 50Mbps Long GOP codec is... when I'm done with these two films, I will gladly post raw material in 4k for you to see how noisy and how much of a pain it's been to work with the FS7.
  • 0

#36 Robin R Probyn

Robin R Probyn
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2613 posts
  • Cinematographer
  • Tokyo

Posted 01 September 2016 - 03:43 AM

ISO means nothing.. ISO 2000 in an F5 is 0db.. alot of misunderstanding here..  On an Arri 800 is 0 db.. ISO is just a number to set your light meter to.. or to use in Cine EI mode..

 

Anyway to avoid the flogging of the dead horse .. again I would ask.. how is it so many  people can get great results from XAVC even on a Fs7..in custom let alone LOG.. there really are thousands of them.. but then there is you and every DP you work with getting crap results.. its purely empirical logic that you guys are the ones doing something wrong.. 

 

So long and thanks for all the fish..


  • 1

#37 Stuart Brereton

Stuart Brereton
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 3482 posts
  • Cinematographer
  • Los Angeles

Posted 01 September 2016 - 02:06 PM

 Most of the time I work in Avid and color with Symphony/DaVinci. My workflows are industry standard, based on my editorial experiences working at various top post houses in Hollywood.
 

It's unusual to have one person cut and color in narrative work. What kind of projects are you working on?

 

 

the massive documentary project I took on earlier this year, which was under exposed by at least 3 stops and shot with a Red Epic.

It's hard to believe that an entire project was accidentally underexposed by such a large degree. Occasional shots, perhaps, but 3 stops across the board?


  • 0

#38 Giray Izcan

Giray Izcan
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 404 posts
  • Cinematographer
  • Los Angeles

Posted 01 September 2016 - 02:15 PM

I wish Tyler left this forum and left us in peace. Now he was the Sony repairman as well. Man, you are a joke, sorry to burst your bubble.


  • 0

#39 Tyler Purcell

Tyler Purcell
  • Sustaining Members
  • 4463 posts
  • Other
  • Los Angeles

Posted 01 September 2016 - 05:40 PM

It's unusual to have one person cut and color in narrative work. What kind of projects are you working on?


Yes, it's actually very unusual. Most editors stay away from coloring. I only do it because it interests me. Sometimes what I do is final, other times I will export my DaVinci project for someone else to finish. Needless to say, I enjoy the "finishing" aspect of projects as much as editing, so I attempt to secure that part of the project whenever I can.

It's hard to believe that an entire project was accidentally underexposed by such a large degree. Occasional shots, perhaps, but 3 stops across the board?


Not accidentally, absolutely intentional. I don't have any footage online, but I will gladly post some samples someday. I'm going to reboot that project in October/November and I'll have things online once more.

I wish Tyler left this forum and left us in peace. Now he was the Sony repairman as well. Man, you are a joke, sorry to burst your bubble.


I was professionally trained as a youth and used it as a backup job for years.
  • 0

#40 Stuart Brereton

Stuart Brereton
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 3482 posts
  • Cinematographer
  • Los Angeles

Posted 01 September 2016 - 07:48 PM

Yes, it's actually very unusual. Most editors stay away from coloring. I only do it because it interests me.
 

But you don't say what kind of projects you are coloring.

 

 

Not accidentally, absolutely intentional.

A DP intentionally underexposed all his material by 3 stops?


  • 1


Glidecam

Metropolis Post

Gamma Ray Digital Inc

Paralinx LLC

Wooden Camera

Tai Audio

New Pro Video - New and Used Equipment

Ritter Battery

Serious Gear

Rig Wheels Passport

Abel Cine

Visual Products

Media Blackout - Custom Cables and AKS

CineLab

Broadcast Solutions Inc

Tai Audio

Rig Wheels Passport

Media Blackout - Custom Cables and AKS

Glidecam

Paralinx LLC

New Pro Video - New and Used Equipment

Broadcast Solutions Inc

Serious Gear

CineLab

Visual Products

Gamma Ray Digital Inc

Wooden Camera

Metropolis Post

Ritter Battery

Abel Cine