SIGMA FP with ProRes RAW and BRAW !

[OleB]

14 minutes ago, webrunner5 said:

From my experience ETTR Only works for photography not video. YMMV. For video you have to think 0 to 100, and you Have to stay in between those values. You are screwed if you go above or below those figures. You really can't be near the limit at either value to be honest. You would have to have 18 stops or more to use it all.

Understand that with video you have to pay more attention as well to the series of shots. So that they look as similar as possible. ETTR for each and everything might not be desirable.

Let us assume the following if that camera has 12.5 stops and we refer to the exposure values (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Exposure_value) all scenes with more DR than the camera can capture would need a sacrifice. In my opinion, and this is very personal, I would rather try to get all highlights in which matter, like clouds and sky outdoors, and let the rest be black below the DR range of the camera. That feels cinematic to me. If I now would underexpose even further the highlights will go darker and even more in the shadows comes black. So nothing to win here unless I misunderstand something.

Sure on a big set you can light up the blacks, or indoors you might decide to let go of a window or parts of it to have more light on the rest but that is a creative decision rather than technical I suppose. 

 

[webrunner5]

Yeah, but when I look at a scene and the blacks are suppressed I think either the camera is shit for DR or the guy or girl shooting it doesn't know what he she is doing. Even a blue sky has dark areas in it if it has clouds. I can see erroring toward the bright area but that is a sketchy approach. Plus like you said that may be for only a few frames than what?

[OleB]

59 minutes ago, webrunner5 said:

Yeah, but when I look at a scene and the blacks are suppressed I think either the camera is shit for DR or the guy or girl shooting it doesn't know what he she is doing. Even a blue sky has dark areas in it if it has clouds. I can see erroring toward the bright area but that is a sketchy approach. Plus like you said that may be for only a few frames than what?

Valid approach of course. So you would prefer keeping as much shadow detail in it as possible? I mean there is most likely a reason why usually with sky you try to keep the sun and what is close to it out of the frame?

What I would think could help indoors to avoid blacks crushing is haze. So would add that to push them up. But then again this is also limited, because not for all scenes you can put in huge amounts. If it fits the story...If not fill lights. 

Guess we can agree that "the" film look might be only possible only when DR of the camera permits to keep both shadows and highlights. 

Always a pleasure to read through all of your experiences here, lots of knowledge to soak up. 🙂 

 

[Llaasseerr]

3 hours ago, OleB said:

Thank you for this extensive and comprehensive write-up. 

In regards to push DR like you have described. My understanding in regards to the overall dynamic range is that you measure stops above the point where nothing is anymore distinguishable from the noise floor of the camera. So if the fp has 12.5 stops that means above the black noise floor. So if you do not push the upper limit into the white clouds and underexpose them, what happens then? 

If I understand you, you're saying what if you don't need to catch very bright highlights? I'm a bit of a fetishist for stops over middle grey, where I like to capturing the highlights of naked practical sources, specular highlights etc. But if they're not needed for the subject matter then it's overkill. I'm just interested to see what can be captured in what I would consider to be a great many cases, and I don't mind a somewhat raised noise floor if it looks natural.

Like you said, when the highlights clip, they clip whereas it's more subjective with the low end and it also depends on the look you like.

[Llaasseerr]

3 hours ago, OleB said:

Thank you for this extensive and comprehensive write-up. 

In regards to push DR like you have described. My understanding in regards to the overall dynamic range is that you measure stops above the point where nothing is anymore distinguishable from the noise floor of the camera. So if the fp has 12.5 stops that means above the black noise floor. So if you do not push the upper limit into the white clouds and underexpose them, what happens then? 

OK I re-read what you're saying and I think I misunderstood you in my initial reply. I'm not looking to measure from the noise floor up, although yes that's a good point that there will sort of only be 12.5 stops available from there. Although I think it's subjective and that the camera companies except Arri and maybe Red are quite obsessed with images with clean shadows and low noise.

I'm looking to push the highlights as much as possible, then look at the noise and see if I can live with the way it looks as I push that 12.5 stop range up. Obviously this is difficult because on a linear scale on the sensor, the shadows are already compressed into a tiny range compared to the highlights due to the brightest stop taking up half the sensor's available range (due to the doubling of light). And I'm proposing pushing the shadows into an even smaller allocation at the low end. But these sensors are just so sensitive to low light, that I'm okay doing that.

[Ryan Earl]

This might be too dirty of a comparison, but the earlier posts concerning the chart have been helpful when looking at my images so I though I would post it anyway. 

I pulled these from ACES versions of my two images.  I blocked the Adobe Standard Profile from hyalinejim on the far right and the initial one from Llaasseerr on the far left. 

[webrunner5]

1 hour ago, OleB said:

Valid approach of course. So you would prefer keeping as much shadow detail in it as possible? I mean there is most likely a reason why usually with sky you try to keep the sun and what is close to it out of the frame?

What I would think could help indoors to avoid blacks crushing is haze. So would add that to push them up. But then again this is also limited, because not for all scenes you can put in huge amounts. If it fits the story...If not fill lights. 

Guess we can agree that "the" film look might be only possible only when DR of the camera permits to keep both shadows and highlights. 

Always a pleasure to read through all of your experiences here, lots of knowledge to soak up. 🙂 

 

I think most people on here, including me, would sacrifice the darker areas for the highlights. YOU have to determine what is your priority in each scene. What makes you happy is what counts. It is your footage. Sure, if you are in a studio you can add or subtract lighting but out in the wild it is rarely a perfect scenario for a great exposure. That is why video is so damn hard to do well.

[webrunner5]

5 minutes ago, Ryan Earl said:

This might be too dirty of a comparison, but the earlier posts concerning the chart have been helpful when looking at my images so I though I would post it anyway. 

I pulled these from ACES versions of my two images.  I blocked the Adobe Standard Profile from @hyalinejim on the right and the initial one from @Llaasseerr on the far left. 

The one on the far left is what a X-RITE chart should look like I think. But I probably would prefer the one on the far right lol.

[mercer]

9 hours ago, Llaasseerr said:

Yes, agreed - just protect the highlights and shoot good stuff. Do the work figuring out where the sensor clips, and expose accordingly even if you can't see that while monitoring. But we have been spoiled by being able to monitor a LUT-ted log image so we can see while shooting exactly what we will see in Resolve, if the colour pipeline is transparent. I have that with the Digital Bolex and fundamentally it's the same in that it just shoots raw DNGs.

As for imperfect scenarios, I do find that there are so many stressful factors when shooting a creative low budget project with some friends that having to babysit the camera is a real killer to the spontaneity, rather than just being able to confidently know what you're getting.

I think what possibly interests me is shooting with an ND and using the exposure compensation to see if that would allow capturing the highlights but at least viewing for the middle. Would need to try it out. I personally don't like the whole ETTR approach because your shots are all over the place and IMO you then really need to shoot a grey card to get back to a baseline exposure, otherwise you're just eyeballing it.

To your larger point, this camera really does seem like something that can just spark some joy and spontaneity because it's so small to be carried around in your pocket and whip out and do some manual focus raw recording, with some heavy hitting metrics in comparison to a Red or a Sony Venice. I get that. I do really feel though that Sigma would not have had to do too much work to make it more objectively usable at image capture, and after its announcement I was interested to give feedback prior to the release, but I didn't know how to get my thoughts up the chain to the relevant people. Then when it was released, they seemed to have made all the classic mistakes.

Yup, more than likely, the meter inconsistency is consistent, so with ND, VND and/or exposure compensation, it should be fairly straightforward to get consistent results. I agree that ETTR isn't optimal, but as you know, a 12bit raw image should give you a lot of leeway in Resolve's Raw Panel.

To add to your greater point... I think I would use the FP as simple as possible... I'd probably monitor it with the Monochrome profile, use the in camera, center weighted meter, run some tests and adjust accordingly. I'd also use a wide angle lens that vignettes a little to take the edge off the highlights, or add a slight vignette in post to soften the highlights when needed.

With my 5D3, I can't even review clips, so the FP seems like a luxury to me in a lot of ways.

Btw, the Digital Bolex is one of my dream cameras. It must be great to have one. 

[TomTheDP]

9 minutes ago, mercer said:

Yup, more than likely, the meter inconsistency is consistent, so with ND, VND and/or exposure compensation, it should be fairly straightforward to get consistent results. I agree that ETTR isn't optimal, but as you know, a 12bit raw image should give you a lot of leeway in Resolve's Raw Panel.

To add to your greater point... I think I would use the FP as simple as possible... I'd probably monitor it with the Monochrome profile, use the in camera, center weighted meter, run some tests and adjust accordingly. I'd also use a wide angle lens that vignettes a little to take the edge off the highlights, or add a slight vignette in post to soften the highlights when needed.

With my 5D3, I can't even review clips, so the FP seems like a luxury to me in a lot of ways.

Btw, the Digital Bolex is one of my dream cameras. It must be great to have one. 

Yeah shooting outside at least you can't go wrong protecting your highlights unless maybe you are shooting a subject with the sun behind them but no camera will really handle that perfectly.

[kye]

9 hours ago, Llaasseerr said:

But the requisite knowledge has not been passed down as well, as to how to use these tools in the way they were designed. So it has created a huge online cottage industry out of false assumptions. 

Absolutely - this is a dominant factor in most online discussions.

One of the things that I think contributes to this is that there is no right or wrong in colour - the colourists are fond of the phrase "if it looks good, it is good".  However, as you well know, the preferred workflow for anyone working with a professional colourist is for the director/dp to light and expose according to the directors vision, then the colourist can pull everything into a timeline, apply a global look, and then tweak from there, but mostly it's about respecting the choices made on-set.

When it comes to the prosumers, there is no pro colourist, so there doesn't need to be a convention or agreed relationship established, and people can do whatever they want, and do, and "get away with it" because "if it looks good it is good".

8 hours ago, webrunner5 said:

This camera to me sounds like it is more of a pain in the ass to use than it is worth. The OG BMPCC is sort of like that also. Sure, when it works it is great, when it doesn't you end up with shit footage.  Why the hell bother. There are too many cameras out now that you just pick up and shoot and bingo, 90% of what you wanted. One and done as they say.

And then you still have to add stuff onto it to make it somewhat useable, I just don't get it. You have to be a gluten for punishment to use this camera, sort of the same for the EOS-M using ML. Hit or miss, mostly miss. 

Real users disagree...

 

5 hours ago, webrunner5 said:

From my experience ETTR Only works for photography not video. YMMV. For video you have to think 0 to 100, and you Have to stay in between those values. You are screwed if you go above or below those figures. You really can't be near the limit at either value to be honest. You would have to have 18 stops or more to use it all.

I think you've gotten yourself turned around.

RAW works with ETTR and the cameras that "There are too many cameras out now that you just pick up and shoot and bingo, 90% of what you wanted. One and done as they say." THOSE are the ones that you should think of as 0-100.

When I shoot with the BMMCC (either in RAW or Prores - they feel the same I'm post) you ETTR and that's the best quality.  I'm talking about recording run-n-gun in very high DR situations here too - sunsets and people standing in front of them, etc.  

It's when you get to shoot LOG that you want to avoid the areas close to 0 and to 100.  I tried ETTR on the GH5 in HLG and WOW - if you want plastic skintones then they're there and they're plastic....  

The reason is that LOG profiles designed by manufacturers take the bit-depth of the file and allocate more of it to the middle region of the luma scale, and really skimp on the highlights and shadows.  I learned that the hard way by putting skintones in the highlights and got the plastic look.  You can think of LOG formats as compressing the highlights and shadows - that's why they require very careful exposure for your skintones, and why you would want to adjust your ISO to a value where the skintones are at the right level (in the sweet spot in the middle where the good IQ is) and the DR of the camera is distributed so you get the highlights or shadows that you're interested in for that scene.

In RAW, it's Linear, so the brightest stop of light gets literally half of the luma values, the second brightest stop gets one quarter, the next one eighth, etc etc..  The shadows get almost nothing.  In that sense, the best image quality is in the highlights, so that's why ETTR was a thing - it makes sure that everything in your scene is exposed as bright as it can be (without clipping whatever it is that you want to keep in the scene) so everything gets the best quality.

[mercer]

1 hour ago, TomTheDP said:

Yeah shooting outside at least you can't go wrong protecting your highlights unless maybe you are shooting a subject with the sun behind them but no camera will really handle that perfectly.

Without a doubt. I would assume that as long as you can see a little detail in the clouds, you should be good to go.

[kye]

1 hour ago, TomTheDP said:

Yeah shooting outside at least you can't go wrong protecting your highlights unless maybe you are shooting a subject with the sun behind them but no camera will really handle that perfectly.

Living on the west coast and having the beach as a convenient test location, I shoot a lot of sunsets, and my experience with the BM OG Pocket and BMMCC are that there's enough DR to just clip a round section just near the sun and still get shaded skin tones usable (to my tastes anyway).  

I have no idea if they were exposed "properly" at the right levels, or if they were one (or more) stops under, but the IQ seemed perfectly acceptable.  I know the BMMCC is still relatively good in terms of DR compared to all but the current generation of cameras, but with those the exposure challenge is even easier to deal with.

I notice really huge differences in practical DR when comparing the GH5 709 modes (that don't have the full DR of the GH5) with the HLG mode (which does - all 9.7 / 10.8 stops of it) and the OG BM cameras with their 11.2 / 12.5 stops.  Another stop or two more would obviously be beneficial above those but I think the point at which you're choosing what to be able to include in the shot (ie, what is usable and what isn't) has probably passed for most people, even with the sun in frame.

[kye]

@TomTheDP  In addition to the above, and I don't know if it's related to DR or not, but the more modern cameras seem to have much better behaviour in their under/over exposure tests.  I had the impression on older cameras that when you went under/over significantly that colour shifts and strange / unpleasant behaviour crept in before clipping or noise, whereas now most cameras seem to have only very subtle colour shifts right up until they clip or get overtaken by noise.

Maybe I'm getting that wrong, but the DR that exists between noise and clipping is far less relevant if the usable DR between strange colour shifts the dominant restriction.

[TomTheDP]

By the way I tested the ARRI against the Sigma in a mixed lighting condition. Lit myself with a blue light on one side and and orange light over head. I was really pleased how close it looked to the Alexa after adjusting WB, tint, and contrast.

Its really too bad all the cheaper cameras have crap focus peaking and terrible laggy HDMI out. The image quality is there but the practical usability on set isn't. But hey still pretty cool to have something like this for a little over a thousand bucks.

I am sure this was already posted but maybe worthy of posting again. Really nice imagery imo
 

 

[webrunner5]

Everyone has their likes and not likes when it comes to shooting, grading. The Very first thing I look for is detail in the shadows. I find the little details hidden in the shadows Way more enticing than super cloud detail etc. So, no I Don't ETTR at all in video, not a lot of times using photos either. I grew up using B&W and you Had to have perfect exposure to make that pop. But film has a Lot of DR so easier than I guess.  I just don't think in video most cameras have enough DR to stretch the highlights and have much meat left at the bottom. Just a thought.

[Llaasseerr]

5 hours ago, webrunner5 said:

The one on the far left is what a X-RITE chart should look like I think. But I probably would prefer the one on the far right lol.

I think the trick is to get something neutral and high dynamic range as a starting point based on the input transform knowing how to transform the sensor data to some baseline level of real world reflectance and exposure, then transform to the "looks good" version on the right.

[HockeyFan12]

1 hour ago, TomTheDP said:

By the way I tested the ARRI against the Sigma in a mixed lighting condition. Lit myself with a blue light on one side and and orange light over head. I was really pleased how close it looked to the Alexa after adjusting WB, tint, and contrast.

Its really too bad all the cheaper cameras have crap focus peaking and terrible laggy HDMI out. The image quality is there but the practical usability on set isn't. But hey still pretty cool to have something like this for a little over a thousand bucks.

I am sure this was already posted but maybe worthy of posting again. Really nice imagery imo
 

 

How do you find the fp vs the S1? To me the S1 seems to have better specs and less aliasing, but the fp has nicer color and a richer (better) look overall?

To me convenience seems to win every time – mostly because I don't have as much free time as I once had. Ironically, for a project that's heavy in post work, an Alexa equals the most convenience even if it's more work on set because it's so incredibly easy to work with in post. Lower res, ProRes, great color for which Lumetri is automatically calibrated, etc. Or.... just familiarity I guess.

The S1 in the field is convenient but I don't love the image as much nor the post workflow.

fp and P6K or P4K make me curious, but these days I don't have much time free for anything. I do think we all take for granted how incredible prosumer cameras are today, the S1(H) and fp included.

[HockeyFan12]

I guess to me the S1 is the ultimate in on set convenience and the Alexa is the ultimate in convenience in post. 

Increasingly I feel like I should have gone for the middle ground for both (P4K and speed booster XL) and left it at that but the last thing I need is to invest more money and time in another camera system.

Were I starting over I think I'd go for a P4K, speed booster XL, and a LOT of old Nikkors.

But I'm not sure I'm starting over. So I don't really know.

[Llaasseerr]

4 hours ago, mercer said:

Yup, more than likely, the meter inconsistency is consistent, so with ND, VND and/or exposure compensation, it should be fairly straightforward to get consistent results. I agree that ETTR isn't optimal, but as you know, a 12bit raw image should give you a lot of leeway in Resolve's Raw Panel.

To add to your greater point... I think I would use the FP as simple as possible... I'd probably monitor it with the Monochrome profile, use the in camera, center weighted meter, run some tests and adjust accordingly. I'd also use a wide angle lens that vignettes a little to take the edge off the highlights, or add a slight vignette in post to soften the highlights when needed.

With my 5D3, I can't even review clips, so the FP seems like a luxury to me in a lot of ways.

Btw, the Digital Bolex is one of my dream cameras. It must be great to have one. 

Yes the most desirable scenario is to use this in as minimalist a fashion as possible like a Leica that can capture Vistavision, exposing for the middle.

I do get the feeling this is why Greig Fraser is shooting with an FX3 right now. But it's great that the fp can shoot internal raw to keep things even smaller, because I don't actually really rate the internal recording on the FX3. The ProRes RAW looks great though.

Owning the Digital Bolex is like owning a vintage motorbike that you're constantly maintaining. Like, it's so weird to get a decent rig that's still minimalist and functional, so I'm always experimenting with it. I have an irrational tolerance of its inefficiencies. It does produce a fantastic image.