EthanAlexander

I'm not sure you're correct that the sensors aren't able to handle SLog2/3... I think it's just that theses curves weren't designed for 8 bit 4:2:0 and low bit rates. For instance: on the FS5... 10 bit 4:2:2 1080p performs night-and-day better than 8 bit 4:2:0 4K, and it's the same sensor for each (obviously).

You're shooting something on a monitor that already has it's own limited dynamic range and color representation, so I don't see how this is helpful... Am I wrong that this would be biased?

So true. People have a natural tendency to think that if you're not making an effort to hide the fact you're filming on a big-ass camera, you must not be doing anything out of the ordinary.

Ok thanks. Well, def going to give it a try then. May start using my 5D way more again!

"So designing a log curve that is optimized for the camera's sensor and its compression processing will generate superior shadow quality through compression processing than will linear compression, but without visible impact to the highlights." https://cineform.blogspot.com/2007/09/10-bit-log-vs-12-bit-linear.html @maxotics (as posted by @iaremrsir)

It's been so long since I did all this I wasn't sure I could go back. Is this the build you're referring to:

FS5. No joke. The electronic variable ND, S Log view assist, tilty/flippy LCD + tilty EVF, top handle, side handle, a bunch of customizable buttons... I spend less time figuring out HOW to film and more time on WHAT. Selling up to what? Also, couple questions: What about the 4K/60 and 120- have you tried it? I'm about to have a sports client and that 120 burst seems mighty enticing because we can pull stills for social media and website. I'm guessing that you're delivering at 1080 if you're saying that the 4K ProRes is only slightly better - Am I wrong? I've been debating if it's the time to get the raw upgrade and everything I've seen on YT/Vimeo seems like it's a win, so I'm curious why you're not impressed. Oh, and what's the data rate of the cDNG?

1920/10*3=576 Yep.

I've been running a build from late 2013 that has SUPER stable 14 bit at full 1080 on my 5D3, so I've never been willing to update. Can anyone confirm how stable the 12 bit compressed build is? I'd love the smaller file sizes.

Yeah this probably the biggest takeaway from everything. When shooting 8 bit in a controlled environment I try to get as close to the final look I can to make the best use of the codec (color charts help a lot with this). With 10 bit though, I haven't found a reason not to shoot S Log (3) with wide color gamuts. It's lovely to work with and I much prefer it to baking in the image in camera.

Yeah, I was trying to delete that before you saw it but I guess my first response got cached in your notifications. I didn't add anything to the discussion. I will say though, since you just said "why take his word over your experience?" that it does seem like the only way forward is for you to experience these things we've been talking about. And I do still think it's a matter of end delivery and the goal of shooting: whether it's to have the most "realistic" picture or to give the most latitude for creative looks - and the extra latitude is something that iaremrsir has addressed head-on multiple times.

Can this get deleted please, mod? I decided against my own post

^That's the most informative post I've seen in a very long time, @iaremrsir

The misunderstanding is from a misalignment of ultimate goals: I think you're just going about this as "how do I get the most saturated, punchy look?" in which case you can't really beat shooting a standard profile. But to my eyes, the last one of your examples looks like shit, and my goal in filming is rarely to make people's eyes bleed with color like that. I'm being hyperbolic here, but really it's a matter of goals, and that's why people are disagreeing with you, @maxotics. Feature films don't look like rec709. They just don't. A lot of this has to do with the fact that movies are NOT supposed to look like real life. There's an art to how the colors of the set, wardrobe, lighting, and color grade create feelings, and S Log and wider color gamuts allow for this creativity whereas shooting a standard profile will make it look like a live TV production.

It's either they haven't solved an overheating issue or they're taking a page out of Canon's book and protecting their 7 inch monitor sales. Can't see another reason because they really would sell like crazy.

In context to my previous response, I think this has more to do with our perception of saturation than the actual colors that are being recorded. For instance, I know what by increasing the "saturation slider" in photoshop, it's actually throwing away a lot of colors and narrowing the overall number still left in the image, because of how our eyes and brains work. Honestly, don't get the full science of it all and never will, I just know from experience that choosing a gamma curve and color space separately will lead to different results. I really don't know if I'm not understanding or you're not. We've reached the extent of my knowledge

Ok, I think I understand the missing part: 8 bit does have a limitation on the number of possible colors recorded (as does 10, 12, 14 bit etc), but we have a choice over WHICH colors we are trying to fit in to that fixed number of colors. So, for instance, with REC709, sRGB has become the defacto color space online because it leads to a high perception of saturation and for the most part looks very true to life while not requiring expensive displays to see them. However, by choosing our gamut, we are telling the camera which subset of "real" colors we want to try to record in the limited space we have (in the case of 8 bit: 16M colors). So, in practice, this is why on a Sony camera we choose both a gamma curve (which affects how luma values are treated) in the form of S Log2, S Log 3, etc. and also have the choice over color gamut, such as standard, pro, cinema, S.Gamut, S.Gamut3, and S.Gamut3/Cine. These color spaces dictate what subset of the spectrum we're trying to squeeze into our codec. Hopefully that clears some things up. Alternatively, maybe I'm missing your greater point.

I still don't understand why you're jumping back and forth between stops (luma values) and and color gamut. Gamma curves affect perception of saturation but they have absolutely nothing to do with the color space that is recorded.

I'm not sure if you're talking a gamma curve or color gammut, because you keep going back and forth describing luma and chroma. SLog only affects the recorded luma values, though it's designed to be used with it's corresponding color gammut (SLog2 with S.Gammut, SLog3 with S.Gammut3, etc.)... Not trying to be overly technical or anything but you said you may be missing something and maybe this is it. I can say from experience that there are certainly trade-offs to trying to using these, such as lost detail and increased noise, but ultimately it gives you much more control in post over how the final image will look. One caveat to this is that 8 bit 4:2:0 is not a great place to try to store SLog (esp. 3) and wide color gammuts. 10 bit 4:2:2 and higher are MUCH better for this. This is telling. You've just got to experience it: 10 bit 4:2:2 is night and day different than 8 bit 4:2:0 when it comes to color grading.

I didn't like the new keyboard (have one at work) but after using it for a while, now when I use the older "fatter" keyboard at home it feels clunky. You'll get used to it It works like a treat, but the lighting port on the bottom is fucking annoying every time it runs out of battery. And it doesn't warn you of low battery until it has about 17 seconds of life left smh.

Having experienced the joy of 10 bit 4:2:2 and true slomo (fps instead of p) on the FS5 and FS7, I'll be disappointed if the A7SIII doesn't include both. SLog really needs these to shine.

LOL. Personally, I think it looks great deezid. It's kinda sad the crushed shadows are getting so much pushback. Oh, and I noticed you're in austin... Me too