What was the first professional camera to shoot LOG gamma?

[maxotics]

16 minutes ago, EthanAlexander said:

I know, having compared the HDR and SDR masters of a huge-budget feature, that ultimately HDR is more pleasing to me.

I never said it wouldn't be more pleasing to me.  I said I was doubtful it would solve the DR problem inherent in 8-bit equipment.  It can be better for a lot of other reasons having nothing to do with DR!  I've said this a lot but feel my statements have been taken out of context.  If I could do it all over again I wouldn't have said or speculated about anything HDR since it just wasn't appropriate because some people are just getting into HDR and it dilutes the worth of what they're doing (which is the last thing I want to do).  For that, I am sorry.

[webrunner5]

  In RAW, 10-bits would mean 1,024 values of each R,G,B value.  That is certain more dynamic range than storing 256 values (8-bit). 

The problem I have with pushing this is you act like there is No white, No black in 8 bit. I will agree there is less of both but, and less of any color variation, but hell All the colors are there. We are not just seeing B&W on Rec. 709.

I seem to have lived for most of my life having color TV's that people have loved to look at and have not felt like they have been screwed over about. And hell most have watched it at 480p, 720p at most. I am sure in the future HDR, 16 bit stuff will be the norm, but right now most people don't give a crap or even know about it. But to push this 10 bit stuff and 20 stop DR the eye see's like we are all going to implode if we don't have it or understand it is just over hype from hell. Rec. 709 is Not going away anytime soon. It is what all 98'% of all TV's in the world can even output.

A hell of a lot of people  on here act if we don't have a F ing camera that has at Least 15 stops and it can't shoot HDR, or I can't deliver it, shit we are all going to die. Sure if I am shooting a movie with a 200 million dollar budget I would get the new Arri, but we are going to be lucky to have a You Tube or Vimeo audience and 90 % of them will watch it on a device that is showing it in Rec. 709.

But hell keep the info coming. Good debate is just that, good debate. We all need to learn about new things, even bone up on the older things. But I think we are letting our passions rule, and that might not be the best approach.

[markr041]

3 hours ago, maxotics said:

I never said it wouldn't be more pleasing to me.  I said I was doubtful it would solve the DR problem inherent in 8-bit equipment.  It can be better for a lot of other reasons having nothing to do with DR!  I've said this a lot but feel my statements have been taken out of context.  If I could do it all over again I wouldn't have said or speculated about anything HDR since it just wasn't appropriate because some people are just getting into HDR and it dilutes the worth of what they're doing (which is the last thing I want to do).  For that, I am sorry.

No, sorry, but your problem was that you were ranting in ignorance of what the benefits of HDR are. If you provided actual correct information (or were more careful in what you said, if you did actually know something) then there would be no reason to apologize. What you said about HDR wasn't appropriate because it was incorrect, not because people are trying out HDR and their feelings might be hurt. Those people who knew more than you on HDR just called you on what you said, appropriately. 

[maxotics]

47 minutes ago, markr041 said:

No, sorry, but your problem was that you were ranting in ignorance of what the benefits of HDR are. If you provided actual correct information (or were more careful in what you said, if you did actually know something) then there would be no reason to apologize. What you said about HDR wasn't appropriate because it was incorrect, not because people are trying out HDR and their feelings might be hurt. Those people who knew more than you on HDR just called you on what you said, appropriately. 

I'm not going to go that far, Mark.  What I said about the limitations of HDR I still believe true.  If you believe I have given incorrect information please post it right here.  Please quote me verbatim and give technical proof of any technical inaccuracy I have given.  I have given technical data above, to show the difficulties inherent in providing increased dynamic range.  I am the closest person here to a real engineer as I have worked with RAW data on a very low level.  For example, when you tell me you can understand this then let's talk https://bitbucket.org/maxotics/focuspixelfixer/src/016f599a8c708fd0762bfac5cd13a15bbe3ef7ff/Program.cs?at=master&fileviewer=file-view-default  "Those people who know more than you on HDR" is who?  Sorry, but just because you can go out and buy a $5,000 camera and TV doesn't mean you know anything about how it is built, how it works, or what it can do when measured SCIENTIFICALLY against other TVs. 

Unlike you, I don't just post clips from expensive cameras of walking around in parks and train stations.  I build software and experiments to test what cameras do.  That IS my thing.  I build gadgets to help with technology.  I've designed and built cameras that take 1+ gigapixel images. http://maxotics.com/service/ though a single optic.  If you don't value what I've learned fine, but I don't see why you need to leave the nastiest comment I've ever read here on EOSHD.

 

[Damphousse]

On 2/1/2018 at 10:46 AM, EthanAlexander said:

I've also come to realize that 90% of viewers don't care if blacks or whites are clipped, so long as people (skin tones) look great and there's a smooth roll-off.

Does anybody care about that?  The problem I have with so much digital stuff is the highlights clip like crap.  Only two solutions.  Either don't let the high lights clip or have some awesome roll off.  If highlights clipped with silky smooth roll off it would have taken me a long time to notice.

I see so many videos where someone will be shooting human skin in sun light and as the person turns and their body goes from partially shading them from direct sun to full sun.  The skin on their hand or forehead clips the same way a silver ball would.  I notice stuff like that a lot more than the supposed loss of fidelity in mid range skin tones with log.

There are so many beautiful images shot with log.  You just have to have the right camera.  The $500 BMPCC trounces cameras costing thousands of dollars.  If I have enough light and expose correctly I have never felt let down by the 10 bit 422 Prores the BMPCC uses.  Raw seems sharper but I have never really felt the midrange color was lacking in prores.  I don't use the camera a ton though so some pros may have some better insight.

[HockeyFan12]

On 2/3/2018 at 1:57 PM, maxotics said:

Sorry, I'm just frustrated.  I believe you get everything I'm saying.  My guess is you have a reverse blind-spot to Jon.  Sorry! You obviously shoot with high-end equipment, so your cameras have fat-pixel sensors and powerful electronics.  LOG IS useful to you.  But I believe sometimes when you think about LOG you forget that you're thinking about LOG in high-bit depth or cinema-sensor contexts.  Many people on this forum have never shot RAW or high bit-depth cameras.  All they know/have, is 8-bit.  That's always what I'm focused on.  Anyway, THANK YOU SO MUCH for your observations.  I haven't used the equipment you have and I certainly don't have your experience so I find your comments extremely interesting.

Now that I hope we're getting somewhere.  I didn't say that Sony and Panasonic were lying.  But I do question what they mean by 10-bit video.  @HockeyFan12 do you find Sony consumer and Panasonic cameras to have true 10-bit, like an Arri?  I don't believe they do.  I believe they are 10bit in adding a couple of decimal places to the internal 24-bit color values, but I don't believe they are 10-bit in saving 1,024 bits per color channel.  Let me know if my question doesn't make sense.

I don't get to use fancy cameras that often! I own an 8 bit camera and am happy with it for personal use. I'd rather focus more on filmmaking... something I seem to have neglected lately.

I don't know if the GH5 is really better in 10 bit, or if it has "true" 10 bit color. Haven't used it! Online tests seem to be inconclusive. I'd guess it makes a difference, but not a huge one. Then again, the Alexa has 15+ stops of dynamic range, and the GH5 doesn't, so it shouldn't matter as much with the GH5. I'm also not sure why SLOG 2 looks so bad from the A7S. I remember it didn't look great from the F5, either, which is a 10 bit camera (I think). F55 RAW looks better to me, but still not as good Alexa ProRes by any means... until it's expertly graded, at least. So each step up does improve the image, more in terms of grading potential than initial look imo. Still, I believe the arguments about 10 bit vs 8 bit on the C200, for instance, are overrated. I suspect 8 bit is enough for Canon Log 3. So it's only if you need those extra two stops of barely there dynamic range that the 10 bit codec would be better (letting you to use Canon Log 2).

But that's not a camera I'm likely to buy. It isn't for me to say what others' needs are. If they need 10 bit, they need 10 bit. Not my concern since I don't. 

I still agree with @jonpais about HDR. In theory (I think), any "normal" or "flat" look, no matter how stretched it is, is just a flat rec709 look, and only has colors within the rec709 gamut. Where log differs is that it takes a container designed for rec709 but lets you capture colors outside that gamut, and then a LUT brings those colors back to a given colorspace. RAW, likewise, is only limited by the thickness of the BFA (which I believe differs between the C100/C300 and C500, fwiw), so you can take a RAW image and bring it into rec709 or bring it into any other given color space if the color is there in the first place. While I bet you could take a rec709 image and map it into HDR, that would be "faking it." Even a GH5 is (presumably) capturing a significantly wider dynamic range and color gamut than rec709 in v log, and shooting log or RAW will let you access those colors. But yes, tonality will suffer. How much? I'm not sure.

I'm also not that interested in producing HDR content, at least at the moment, so for me color and tonality matter more. I suspect it requires a really good source to get high end HDR that has great tonality, but I wouldn't be surprised if HDR from the GH5 still looks good.

I completely agree with @Damphousse that highlight roll off matters more than dynamic range to the average viewer. That's why I never got behind the A7S. The chroma clipping is severe. With a C300 or F3, my image might clip, but I can make it clip in a way that's aesthetically pleasing. With the A7S (and the early F5, it's better now) colors clipped wrong and it looked like video. So for me, the camera with the lower dynamic range is the one with the better image and grading potential, subjectively. The Alexa gets both right, you'll want to grade to burn it out.

Furthermore, I have reservations about HDR. My first taste of it was Dolby's 10,000 nit demo with high end acquisition, so I'm really spoiled on it. I also can't afford a new tv, so there's that. More than anything, HDR and 4k feel like a simulation of reality, whereas film feels like a more physical organic medium. You go to a movie theater and watch film and the image is 24fps in a dark environment and your eyes are in mesopic vision and the film has a sort of built in tone mapping from the halation around bright spots and diffusion filters or anamorphic lenses, both of which which I love, bring it out even more with wild flares. There's not so much resolution, but the color is beautiful, and the contrast in the color allows the image to look much richer and higher dynamic range or higher contrast than it is. I like theatrical lighting with film, vivid and colorful. It feels like a dream a bit more, but I prefer stylized (not over-stylized) filmmaking.

Whereas HDR, though stunning, seems to lend itself better to very naturalistic photography. Granted it makes anything look way better, but I see it being most useful in VR with like 8k per eye 120fps reality simulation. And I sort of think that's its own medium. Generally I think photography has tended a bit too much toward naturalism lately. So for my own purposes, I'm just happy doing weird stuff to 8 bit footage. But HDR is stunning. HDR nature documentaries are going to be breathtaking. 

 

[maxotics]

11 minutes ago, HockeyFan12 said:

I don't know if the GH5 is really better in 10 bit, or if it has "true" 10 bit color

Yes, it's better in "10-bit" because it's shooting chroma sampling 422, but calling it "10-bit" well, I'll leave that alone .  I don't dispute that I'd rather grade 422 than 420.  What I question is whether the 10-bit from the GH5 is the same as the 10-bit ProRes from the BMPCC as @Damphousse Anyway, like you, I don't have any real problems with 8-bit.  Will the C-LOG from my Canon C100 look better on an HDR TV--most likely!  But there are other reasons for that than dynamic range.  The whole 15-stops of DR in 8-bit claims are beyond ignorant to me, but again, I'll say no more.  The C100 gives a super beautiful image in 8-bit.   

I just started this thread hoping some people were viewing who have worked with professional equipment for the past 15 years and could shed light on the question of when LOG began, etc.   I love all this technology, the cameras from Panasonic, Sony, BM, Canon, Nikon, etc.  However, this is supposed to be a forum for filmmakers.  I hope to help them understand something that is going on under the hood so they can make better decisions.  I hope to learn from them, what they experience in their shooting.   It's sad I can't give opinions about what HDR can, or cannot do.  

I should probably leave this forum for a bit.

[PannySVHS]

Just now, maxotics said:

I should probably leave this forum for a bit.

Hey Max, but only because you are up to some great treats real life has to offer, I am sure! Don´t bother with one or two polemic comments in this thread. You are contributing very well written, very interesting and knowledgeabele articles, providing perspectives and approaches to novice techies like me and others.

What I know is, DR helps big time to avoid clipping.

What I also know, 8bit SLOG does that by stealing too many values in the dark areas, giving us natiest banding of two color values instead of gradations of 20-60 values. This is something I found in your comments as well beside a whole lot of interesting observations.

Anyway, great post of yours and some great arguments and knowledge from some other posters as well.

[IronFilm]

9 hours ago, maxotics said:

It's what we do after learning our errors that define us (hint, hint @IronFilm). 

Huh, what are you hinting at?

 

9 hours ago, EthanAlexander said:

I do appreciate all your posts though! They're educational and make me think. And your posts back in June are actually the reason I even signed up for a forum account... I signed up to argue with you about S Log 

Maybe we need more controversial threads started on EOSHD! ;-) 

 

3 hours ago, Damphousse said:

There are so many beautiful images shot with log.  You just have to have the right camera.  The $500 BMPCC trounces cameras costing thousands of dollars.  If I have enough light and expose correctly I have never felt let down by the 10 bit 422 Prores the BMPCC uses.  Raw seems sharper but I have never really felt the midrange color was lacking in prores.  I don't use the camera a ton though so some pros may have some better insight.

Where is this $500 BMPCC?? The sale ended a long long time ago :-( :-( 

Keep on wishing for a $500 BMMCC!! :-D

[HockeyFan12]

1 hour ago, PannySVHS said:

Hey Max, but only because you are up to some great treats real life has to offer, I am sure! Don´t bother with one or two polemic comments in this thread. You are contributing very well written, very interesting and knowledgeabele articles, providing perspectives and approaches to novice techies like me and others.

Agreed, I don't even know how we got on the subject of HDR. :/ Maybe we should just move off that, since it's apparently a contentious topic... and I think hopefully when HDR hits it big it will obviate the need for log gammas since we can see fifteen stops of information on screen at once without having to flatten it out.

@Maxotics as best I can recall, log gammas were introduced for film scans to save file space. 10 bit log could represent the data from a 16 bit linear scan. I believe Cineon was the most common format, designed by Kodak, and–apocryphally–I hear some of that same magic lives on in the Alexa, even though Log C doesn't look at all like a film scan to my eye.

There are still formats out there that are wide DR in linear colorspaces, Open EXR, for instance. Maybe DPX? Though I usually get DPX in log these days.

Panalog was the first log video format I've heard of. I haven't worked with it. The first log format I worked with was was possibly from Red (it was poorly implemented; their current IPP2 stuff is much better). The first good log format I worked with was S LOG, on an F3. I was so impressed. Or maybe the Alexa. I forget. I do remember SLOG on the F3 benefited tremendously from 10 bit capture. Later I got to work with in post (but not shoot) some SLOG footage  from the F35, and that camera produces a great image to my eye, although it's pretty controversial on some forums, and a pain to use I'm told. The image reminds me of a really beefed up C100 a bit.

Here are some white papers for Cineon, SLOG, and Panalog:

I couldn't make it through them. Math isn't my strength; I've really struggled with it. It is interesting that Cineon is apparently 10 bit in a 12 bit wrapper. Not sure why... but it seems to indicate that 10 bit log is sufficient to capture the vast majority of film's dynamic range. Though Kaminski would note that the DI burns the highlights and crushes the shadows a bit... which he liked. 

I really can't speak to 10 bit on the GH5. I'd be interested to hear a good colorist's take on the subject. I do think "8 bit" has a bad name among people who don't run their own tests, though.  Like you, I have separate cameras for video and for stills... and most just use my iPhone for both.

[IronFilm]

3 hours ago, HockeyFan12 said:

I completely agree with @Damphousse that highlight roll off matters more than dynamic range to the average viewer. That's why I never got behind the A7S. The chroma clipping is severe. With a C300 or F3, my image might clip, but I can make it clip in a way that's aesthetically pleasing. With the A7S (and the early F5, it's better now) colors clipped wrong and it looked like video. So for me, the camera with the lower dynamic range is the one with the better image and grading potential, subjectively. The Alexa gets both right, you'll want to grade to burn it out.

 

That is a big big appeal of the Arri cameras, and why they are #1. Because of their highlight roll off.

 

[maxotics]

1 hour ago, HockeyFan12 said:

10 bit log could represent the data from a 16 bit linear scan. I believe Cineon was the most common format, designed by Kodak, and–apocryphally–I hear some of that same magic lives on in the Alexa, even though Log C doesn't look at all like a film scan to my eye.

Thanks, I think you've finally give me the information for my report, when I finish it! THANKS!!!!

LOG makes sense for a 16-bit linear scan in old scanners because the data DOES need to be in a LOG scale to work with displays.  That makes total sense to me.  However, I believe some people assume that the camera manufacturer don't already pick data into a LOG distribution for cameras.  That is, they believe there LOG gives a trick to give more DR that the camera manufacturers didn't "notice" until they put LOG gammas into their shooting profiles.  I believe that is totally false.  Needed gamma adjustments to electronic visual data in cameras have been understood from day one.  Scanners are a whole other story. 

The links you gave appear to me as broken graphics.  Can you try again?  Thanks!

@IronFilm  What is distortion?  My understanding is that It can either result from sound pressure overloading the microphone's diaphragm or from a data stream that has more dynamic range than the data containers can hold?  The reason some don't notice a relationship between dynamic range and bit-depth is that in audio, the equipment is more than powerful enough to capture all the electronic data produced by the microphone and a resolution where people do not notice distortion.  This is not the case in video.  Current sensors produce way more data than consumer cameras and memory cards can handle.  One can consult the table values I attached above.  In any recording of physical measurements, dynamic range must have enough bits to record whatever resolution of data is required to give a continuous signal.  

As you know, there are people who argue that we can discern distortion unconsciously even at 44hz resolution.  What do they believe one needs to reduce that distortion?  More samples which means more data.  Ultimate Dynamic range = resolution / range-of-values.  If I can sum my whole point about dynamic range is that one can't think of range only (5-14 stops, whatever) one must factor in the resolution (the "dynamic") needed to give continuous color visually or continuous tone in sound.  

 

 

[webrunner5]

Don't Leave Max, it will be boring as hell here without you!

And maybe the first to have Log might be. "The CvpFileEditor can be used with the HDW-F900R for creation of custom gamma curves. Existing gamma curves, generated for use with the original HDW-F900, can also be applied." 2006 camera.

https://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/633399-REG/Sony_HDWF900RPAC1D_HDW_F900R_CineAlta_24P_HDCAM.html

[HockeyFan12]

http://www.digital-intermediate.co.uk/film/pdf/Cineon.pdf

https://pro.sony.com/bbsccms/assets/files/mkt/cinema/solutions/slog_manual.pdf

http://www.panavision.com/sites/default/files/docs/documentLibrary/Panalog Explained.pdf

 

[Django]

On 2/3/2018 at 3:27 PM, jonpais said:

@Django Here’s a list of portable devices that support Mobile HDR: Samsung Galaxy Note 8, Samsung Galaxy S8, Samsung S8 Plus, LG G6, LG V30, Sony Xperia XZ Premium, Sony Xperia XZ1, Pixel, Razer Phone, Apple iPhone X, Apple iPhone 8, Apple iPhone 8 Plus, Apple iPad Pro, Samsung Galaxy Tab S3, and the Samsung Galaxy Book.

For the fiscal first quarter of 2018, Apple alone shipped nearly 80 million smartphones worldwide, representing over 1% of the world’s population. And that’s just 3 months for one manufacturer, not including tablets and Apple TV. So I believe the number is actually far greater than .2%. lol

 

Actually, outside sources reveal iPhone X is a flop and manufacturing will be cut by 50% this quarter. iPhone 8 is also underperforming.. but you know what i find most amusing?  all this fuss over HDR.. to end up being viewed, by what 1% of the population? on a glossy 4" phone display in mixed lighting (while being bombarded by on-screen notifications & incoming calls..) what a time to be alive!

seriously though i'm with others here.. HDR at this point is mostly marketing hype. Nobody in the real world is equipped for it yet and just like 3D TVs which came and went or even 4K TVs at launch that were being pushed before there was even any 4k broadcast material available.. heck i remember when HDR was the next cool thing in photography, now it's considered kind of corny.. time will tell but something tells me HDR video is just the trend of the day like hyper-lapse, super-slomo, VR etc.. All of which are cool things but I'm certainly in no rush to jump on the bandwagon, then again it's a subjective thing, and my aesthetic tends more around organic/filmic rather than hyperrealism.

 

[Django]

oh and as far as the whole 8-bit / 10-bit / raw / log etc debate.. this good old video by Dugdale revealed some interesting stuff using a multitude of cams (A7R2/A7S2/FS5/C100/Red):

 

[webrunner5]

9 hours ago, HockeyFan12 said:

http://www.digital-intermediate.co.uk/film/pdf/Cineon.pdf

https://pro.sony.com/bbsccms/assets/files/mkt/cinema/solutions/slog_manual.pdf

http://www.panavision.com/sites/default/files/docs/documentLibrary/Panalog Explained.pdf

 

Yeah it looks like the Sony F35 was made in 2004 at the start. This movie "Bones" was shot, along with, a Arri film camera in it in 2005. So that is a year earlier than what I posted on the 3 ccd Sony camera.

https://onset.shotonwhat.com/gallery/on-location-bones-2005/?tag=1721

[jonpais]

Regarding dynamic range and loss of color saturation, log profiles, and this whole idea that “you don’t get something for nothing”, I find Joseph Moore’s explanation over in a thread about the GH4 and V-log to be very clear and, most importantly, an accurate description of what I see with my own eyes when watching a moving image, as opposed to charts and 400% enlargements. 

I think it's important to recognize that the tonal areas in which precision is being compromised (which any LOG curve must do) are the areas in which our eyes can't distinguish fine gradations. (Especially highlights.) The sensitive midrange is being afforded the most bits. This isn't revelatory, this is what a LOG profile is for...sacrifice precision in the extremes in order to squeeze in more dynamic range. That's a trade-off that will almost always yield a better PQ.

source

In his blog, he also describes very coherently, in layman’s terms, the three types of spatial resolution. A very good read.

[webrunner5]

3 minutes ago, jonpais said:

Regarding dynamic range and loss of color saturation, log profiles, and this whole idea that “you don’t get something for nothing”, I find Joseph Moore’s explanation over in a thread about the GH4 and V-log to be very clear and, most importantly, an accurate description of what I see with my own eyes when watching a moving image, as opposed to charts and 400% enlargements. 

I think it's important to recognize that the tonal areas in which precision is being compromised (which any LOG curve must do) are the areas in which our eyes can't distinguish fine gradations. (Especially highlights.) The sensitive midrange is being afforded the most bits. This isn't revelatory, this is what a LOG profile is for...sacrifice precision in the extremes in order to squeeze in more dynamic range. That's a trade-off that will almost always yield a better PQ.

source

In his blog, he also describes very coherently, in layman’s terms, the three types of spatial resolution. A very good read.

And that is what Rec. 709 has been doing for 30 years or more.

[jonpais]

and that is what rec2020 will be doing for the following thirty years!.

And, I’m sorry, @maxotics, but you’ve been going on about how shooting in log, we’re losing all this vital color information, when in fact, the gains in dynamic range are more perceptible to the human eye. Some here are saying, ‘but displays can’t reproduce rec2020, so we’re not really seeing  true HDR!’ Which is not true - we are still seeing large gains in dynamic range and local contrast. rec2020 is a goal, nothing more. It’s a standard. 90% of P3 on a home television is nothing to sneeze at either.