Panasonic Lumix S1R Mark II coming soon

[Andrew Reid]

Just an observation...

These latitude tests are daft. Nobody should be exposing a CMOS sensor 3-4-5 stops under.

Just let the fucking window blow out.

Colours, skintones, the entire look is more or less best when the multi-metering is on default.

Sometimes I like to go 1 stop under maximum.

When you have to dig the mids out of the blacks they look like crap.

[Walter H]

12 minutes ago, Andrew Reid said:

Just an observation...

These latitude tests are daft. Nobody should be exposing a CMOS sensor 3-4-5 stops under.

Just let the fucking window blow out.

Colours, skintones, the entire look is more or less best when the multi-metering is on default.

Sometimes I like to go 1 stop under maximum.

When you have to dig the mids out of the blacks they look like crap.

What I appreciate about it (quite a lot, actually) is that I rarely work in controlled lighting environments. While I'm not exposing for it, I regulalry do need to work shadows three stops or a bit more. The S1 has been strong for me in this regard and I'm intrigued that this camera might be even better rather than penalized for its higher resolution, which is what I was expecting. 

One still from a recent project that is eblematic of the environments I'm often in. This project had both stills and video as deliverables.

[Andrew Reid]

Yes and lifting shadows is exactly the reason not to go 4 stops underexposed.

I've seen shoots where they are trying to protect a highlight to the extreme and the rest of the shot is so noisy when they lift the exposure back up, looks like camera was at ISO 25,600 or similar.

I also think that a high dynamic range look on an SDR display looks like it has no tonality.

You have done a good job with the cow shot though.

So maybe it's a moooooot point.

[MurtlandPhoto]

42 minutes ago, Walter H said:

What I appreciate about it (quite a lot, actually) is that I rarely work in controlled lighting environments. While I'm not exposing for it, I regulalry do need to work shadows three stops or a bit more.

Same here. It seems to me that at worst this camera may just need to be exposed a little differently than previous S cameras. I typically ETTR to get shadow details since the S1H and S5iix have great highlight detail. The S1Rii may just need to be exposed more in the middle knowing shadows can be boosted with little penalty.

[Walter H]

1 minute ago, Andrew Reid said:

Yes and lifting shadows is exactly the reason not to go 4 stops underexposed.

I've seen shoots where they are trying to protect a highlight to the extreme and the rest of the shot is so noisy when they lift the exposure back up, looks like camera was at ISO 25,600 or similar.

I also think that a high dynamic range look on an SDR display looks like it has no tonality.

You have done a good job with the cow shot though.

So maybe it's a moooooot point.

Totally. I appreciate all of those points.

[Andrew Reid]

Or maybe not actually because although the parts outside the metal fencing are not blown out the entire back of her head is, and there's no detail in the hair.

I would be tempted to prioritize the colour, detail and tonality of the inside of the barn and let the small bit of outside blow in a graceful way to absolute white, which looks like sunlight flooding in and would be quite nice.

[Walter H]

3 minutes ago, MurtlandPhoto said:

Same here. It seems to me that at worst this camera may just need to be exposed a little differently than previous S cameras. I typically ETTR to get shadow details since the S1H and S5iix have great highlight detail. The S1Rii may just need to be exposed more in the middle knowing shadows can be boosted with little penalty.

This seems to be the case - that the S1RII needs a bit more highlight protection. The Ed Prosser video bears that out. 

[Andrew Reid]

7 minutes ago, MurtlandPhoto said:

Same here. It seems to me that at worst this camera may just need to be exposed a little differently than previous S cameras. I typically ETTR to get shadow details since the S1H and S5iix have great highlight detail. The S1Rii may just need to be exposed more in the middle knowing shadows can be boosted with little penalty.

I still think that ETTR and trying to max out dynamic range leads to a worse overall look.

It is one of the reason people complain about the colours on CMOS sensors and the flat tonality.

The cinema look even in uncontrolled light is to prioritise what part of the shot is the most important.

I really like my contrast

Take the original Blade Runner for example, there would be no benefit in bringing up the shadows in this shot.

The silhouette of the figure and the walkway is what the shot is about.

So here 7 stops better than 14.

In this one even though it's film the neon is blown out.

There would be no benefit having an Alexa 35 here because if the neon mess behind him was bright colours and details it would be distracting us from the main subject.

It is also supposed to look bright... because lights are... erm... bright

Like the sun is bright.

Today I don't know why people want to make lights look dark and shadows look bright, it makes no sense.

[Andrew Reid]

Fast forward to 2049 and the modern Alexa era..

This shot looks like it needs 15 stops but it could have been shot with a GH2 actually.

That's because they have 100% control over the yellow light source.

And yet still they chose to blow out the top of his head to give the figure some shape and tonality.

It would be weird if it looked like he wasn't under a strong glare because they wanted to maximize the dynamic range.

Wouldn't suit the scene.

[Andrew Reid]

Another comparison between a high dynamic range scene in 2049 vs similar shot from the original...

I personally think the HDR 2049 scene looks too peaceful and clinical, milky, hazy.

Whereas the high contrast in the old film looks far more dramatic and in keeping with the brutality of that dystopian world.

[Emanuel]

4 minutes ago, Andrew Reid said:

Today I don't know why people want to make lights look dark and shadows look bright, it makes no sense.

More than making sense... It's like the refrigerator POV shots... Hitchcock once called it the cow's perspective when Truffaut asked him why there were no establishing shots for the trains with his movies...

[MurtlandPhoto]

11 minutes ago, Andrew Reid said:

I still think that ETTR and trying to max out dynamic range leads to a worse overall look.

It is also supposed to look bright... because lights are... erm... bright

Like the sun is bright.

Today I don't know why people want to make lights look dark and shadows look bright, it makes no sense.

 

I'm with you. I always pull the shadows back down to fill out my scope. The little bit I ETTR just makes the lower midtones a bit cleaner.

[Andrew Reid]

1 minute ago, Emanuel said:

More than making sense... It's like the refrigerator POV shots... Hitchcock once called it the cow's perspective when Truffaut asked him why there were no establishing shots for the trains with his movies...

Now you are making a lot of sense.

I like it when there's a hard realism to my fantasy worlds...

HDR V-LOG is not how we see.

[ND64]

Once a fashion photographer told me, in a humorous way, that why he doesnt need high DR. The scene was a hotel room and half naked model was lying on the bed. He wanted the window, that has a view to a historical building, to be completely blown out, because "the facade of that damn building is sexier than my model". It was interesting to me that how much they're obsessed with viewer attention heat map in their frame, like they even plan for the eye movements. 

[IronFilm]

On 3/3/2025 at 6:42 AM, MrSMW said:

It's quite funny though that the image is considered 'as good'. It's a 2019 camera vs a 2025. How is that progress??!!

Even an "ancient" Nikon D800 still does "good" image quality by 2025 standards. 

Basically for a number of years then stills performances have been in a plateau of at best gradual improvement in image quality. Eventually we're starting to see the same happen for video image performance as well.

 

[Emanuel]

Just now, Andrew Reid said:

Now you are making a lot of sense.

I like it when there's a hard realism to my fantasy worlds...

LOL The world inside has no limits and sometimes I forget that ; ) I have to refrain myself to start talking about things somehow related but proper of somewhere else. I prepare a PhD program, maybe... Not yet sure if I have time for, so I start to prep myself to the idea.

Speaking of hard reality, people love to have a diploma rather than learning a craft. So, any graduation even at film school asks for official accreditation and no professional course of work is enough to have the instructors recognised by the State, EU regulations and the community in general. A pity. My readers have to pay the price : D 

[eatstoomuchjam]

18 minutes ago, Andrew Reid said:

I personally think the HDR 2049 scene looks too peaceful and clinical, milky, hazy.

Whereas the high contrast in the old film looks far more dramatic and in keeping with the brutality of that dystopian world.

Whatever the personal preference on the shots, part of the question for me would be whether that's a capture-time decision or a decision to be made in the edit/color grade.  I tend to favor the latter.  Best to capture a flexible "negative" that can be manipulated after the fact.

As an example, I recently shot and then colored a short film with someone else doing the editing.  The editor complained after my first color pass that it was too contrasty and dark.  The scene is a tense scene in a hallway with a man in military gear guarding the rear while his comrades rush off.  The light in the hallway is flickering and supposed to be faulty.  For me, bringing the levels down and crushing the shadows (and yes, losing detail!) was absolutely the right call.  The darkness and contrast help to convey the tense feeling of the scene... and flickering lights tend not to be strong!

Anyway, thankfully the director/producer liked the darkness so we went with it...  but the washed-out look seems really fashionable these days (and I'm not all that here for it).

[Andrew Reid]

32 minutes ago, IronFilm said:

Even an "ancient" Nikon D800 still does "good" image quality by 2025 standards. 

Basically for a number of years then stills performances have been in a plateau of at best graduate improvement in image quality. Eventually we're starting to see the same happen for video image performance as well.

D800 and Pentax K-1

Best stills image quality from 10 years ago

I agree there's been a plateau.

The main difference between 2015 and 2025 if we're talking stills is that the GFX 100 II now exists.

100mp, and larger than full frame. That's quite a good advance.

In video the progress has been much more noticeable due to the speed and less heat of modern CPUs and sensors.

[cosarth]

18 minutes ago, IronFilm said:

Even an "ancient" Nikon D800 still does "good" image quality by 2025 standards. 

Basically for a number of years then stills performances have been in a plateau of at best graduate improvement in image quality. Eventually we're starting to see the same happen for video image performance as well.

 

Video performance is so close to its peak that people run out of things to whine about, splitting hair on frantic panoramic movements that no one will ever shoot in real life.

[ND64]

11 minutes ago, cosarth said:

frantic panoramic movements that no one will ever shoot in real life.

Democratization of videography introduced a group of people to the community who do. The expectations of a TikToker from a dedicated camera is obviously different than mine.