18 October - New Camera from Sony.

[Mark Rosenzweig]

Originally Posted by Ron Evans

I think the value in HLG is to deliver one file for SDR and HDR TV's. That is exactly why BBC and NHK developed it. It has the value of shooting and showing immediately with no grading. Looking at the gamma curve it is not very different to the Canon 800% curve. If you want to grade and create a look of any type then Log is the way to go. If you want to shoot an event and archive the file in HDR then I think HLG has this in its favour and why I want to shoot in HLG. Did you see this from Alistair Alistair Chapman - What is Hybrid Log Gamma HLG (Sony FS5) - YouTube

Alistair's point is exactly NOT to shoot using HLG. He explicitly says that HLG is a delivery format, not a shooting format. And the HLG video files clearly are inferior in color accuracy to REC709 video files viewed in REC709. And they are difficult to convert to REC709, he says.

And, no if you want to archive an event, you should shoot in Slog or Vlog, because that gives you the highest quality AND the ability to convert those files to any new HDR or SDR format, including HLG, PQ etc. And they will be the highest quality, higher than an HLG-shot file.

You are free to shoot in HLG, but you are crippling quality (lower DR than you could get) and your REC709 viewers will not be pleased. It is a tautology to say that if you want to archive in HLG shoot in HLG. The point is why lock yourself into HLG, given all the shortcomings.

[Ron Evans]

Originally Posted by Mark Rosenzweig

Alistair's point is exactly NOT to shoot using HLG. He explicitly says that HLG is a delivery format, not a shooting format. And the HLG video files clearly are inferior in color accuracy to REC709 video files viewed in REC709. And they are difficult to convert to REC709, he says.

And, no if you want to archive an event, you should shoot in Slog or Vlog, because that gives you the highest quality AND the ability to convert those files to any new HDR or SDR format, including HLG, PQ etc. And they will be the highest quality, higher than an HLG-shot file.

You are free to shoot in HLG, but you are crippling quality (lower DR than you could get) and your REC709 viewers will not be pleased. It is a tautology to say that if you want to archive in HLG shoot in HLG. The point is why lock yourself into HLG, given all the shortcomings.

If it is not a shooting format why would Sony and others update their firmware to include it ? I want to archive a file that can be played immediately on a normal TV. Cannot do that with a Log format that needs grading. Absolutely agree that Log formats will give a better source to grade and with greater dynamic range. That is not my point at all. Where does he say it is difficult to convert to REC 709? The only difference is that it may be a little darker above 75% and the colour matrix needs to change. My intent is for the future when playback will be on a HDR set. I can change the colour for editing in my SDR project but I have that archive for the future with little effort on my part.

[Mark Rosenzweig]

Originally Posted by Ron Evans

I want to archive a file that can be played immediately on a normal TV. Cannot do that with a Log format that needs grading. Absolutely agree that Log formats will give a better source to grade and with greater dynamic range. That is not my point at all. Where does he say it is difficult to convert to REC 709? The only difference is that it may be a little darker above 75% and the colour matrix needs to change. My intent is for the future when playback will be on a HDR set. I can change the colour for editing in my SDR project but I have that archive for the future with little effort on my part.

You cannot shoot HLG and get a good REC709 video without work in post. Period. Did you actually watch the Chapman video: He says precisely that it is very difficult to convert HLG to REC709. And even if it were not, you are back to what you said you did not want to do: grade in post to change the color matrix and change the gamma to get a good REC709 picture. HLG does not look nearly as good as REC709 on REC709 TV's without grading. And there are LUTs that make the conversion of Slogs to REC709 that make that conversion easy, if you are lazy.

Again: archiving in a specific picture profile that compromises dynamic range and has a very specific color gamut not easily converted to other specs is not what anyone should do for archive purposes.

HLG as a shooting codec is good for one thing: producing an HLG video for viewing on HLG TV's. That's it - it is not for archiving, it is not for maximizing video quality, its not for viewing on REC709 TV's unless you do not care that much about IQ.

Perhaps shooting in HLG is useful for live TV broadcasts in HLG in some imagined future.

[Cliff Totten]

Sony should have given the Z150 SLOG at the same time they gave it HLG!!!

Now they are stuck with a much cheaper Z90 below it that offers SLOG that it's more expensive brother doesn't have! How stupid is that?

From the little HLG shooting I have done with the Z150, I have seen that you "can" normalize it to rec 709 800% contrast fairly easily. It's not hard at all. It's rec709 from the bottom all the way up to 60 or 70 than compresses from there on up. This is really not a hard thing to reverse, shift and lift.

For that one odd-ball Z150 camera that has HLG WITHOUT any true log option....HLG is the "only" high dynamic range capture you can record with. So Z150 people are stuck having to use that. At least you get smooth highlight rolloff, unlike the rec709-ish profiles it has.

CT

[Ron Evans]

Mark I have watched the video several times and I would like you to specifically give me the time in the video where Alistair says it is difficult to convert HLG to REC 709. In fact he demonstrates how to do just that. You clearly do not want HLG and thats fine with me. He mentions that is is not easy to grade like one would Log but the whole point of HLG is to shoot and show directly on a consumer HDR TV. No grading is the whole point. That is why I want my archive to be able to do this. You can do it any way you want but I would certainly not archive a LOG file as that would require effort to show for instance have a TV with LUT's in it that are appropriate. I can see that if one is creating a narrative film one would shoot LOG and then to ensure the audience saw what the director wanted use HDR10 or even Dolby. Not the case for me or maybe many others. I shoot an event of maybe 2 hours and want a HDR record. To me HLG is made for this. Encode to h265 etc for a smaller file. The only other use is to DVD or Bluray and I can spend the time to convert to rec709. Effectively apply a colour LUT from 2020 to 709 and boost the mids a little.

I can see your point of view you clearly cannot see any use for HLG. Maybe all the manufactures got wrong !!!

[Mark Rosenzweig]

Originally Posted by Ron Evans

Mark I have watched the video several times and I would like you to specifically give me the time in the video where Alistair says it is difficult to convert HLG to REC 709. In fact he demonstrates how to do just that. You clearly do not want HLG and thats fine with me. He mentions that is is not easy to grade like one would Log but the whole point of HLG is to shoot and show directly on a consumer HDR TV. No grading is the whole point. That is why I want my archive to be able to do this. You can do it any way you want but I would certainly not archive a LOG file as that would require effort to show for instance have a TV with LUT's in it that are appropriate. I can see that if one is creating a narrative film one would shoot LOG and then to ensure the audience saw what the director wanted use HDR10 or even Dolby. Not the case for me or maybe many others. I shoot an event of maybe 2 hours and want a HDR record. To me HLG is made for this. Encode to h265 etc for a smaller file. The only other use is to DVD or Bluray and I can spend the time to convert to rec709. Effectively apply a colour LUT from 2020 to 709 and boost the mids a little.

I can see your point of view you clearly cannot see any use for HLG. Maybe all the manufactures got wrong !!!

I am sorry you still do not understand. First, I did not say there is "not any use for *shooting in* HLG." I specifically gave the use - for instant display of HDR on an HLG-enabled TV. What it is NOT good for is archiving or displaying on REC709 TV's or HDR10 TV's. Second, your posts are filled with inconsistent logic - the only way you cannot avoid grading in post when you shoot HLG is when the video is displayed on an HLG-enabled TV. Otherwise you have to grade, and your video will be lower quality than if you shoot in Slog or Vlog. You also do not seem to understand that if you shoot in Slog you will have an HDR-capable record (archive), and one that can be higher quality HDR than if you shot HLG. And you have the choice of REC709 or HLG or HDR10 or whatever will be the HDR standards to come.

I hope even if you have trouble with this, others making choices of what to shoot in will understand the issues. Or, they can just watch the Alistair Chapman video, which says the same thing - HLG is not a shooting codec.

[Steven Digges]

So......back to the topic....

Was this new camera announcement a lost leader? A total bust??? It is past 6:00PM in NY. I searched and can't find anything but the rumors leading up to today.

Steve

[David Knaggs]

Originally Posted by Cliff Totten

Sony should have given the Z150 SLOG at the same time they gave it HLG!!!

Now they are stuck with a much cheaper Z90 below it that offers SLOG that it's more expensive brother doesn't have! How stupid is that?

From the little HLG shooting I have done with the Z150, I have seen that you "can" normalize it to rec 709 800% contrast fairly easily. It's not hard at all. It's rec709 from the bottom all the way up to 60 or 70 than compresses from there on up. This is really not a hard thing to reverse, shift and lift.

For that one odd-ball Z150 camera that has HLG WITHOUT any true log option....HLG is the "only" high dynamic range capture you can record with. So Z150 people are stuck having to use that. At least you get smooth highlight rolloff, unlike the rec709-ish profiles it has.

Hi Cliff.

This is the "post of the month" as far as I am concerned. You have summed up my current dilemma as a fairly recent Z150 buyer perfectly. I was so displeased with the highlight rolloff in two scenes of a recent project that I've been contemplating this Z90 and also learning about shooting S-LOG and how to grade it. I'm always so "time-crunched" that my preference until now has been to shoot with a really good and versatile Picture Profile (preferably one of Doug's), expose it correctly and then do minimal color correction in post. But this highlight handling of the Z150 is just too unsatisfactory. Mind you, I'm very happy indeed with the general picture quality of the Z150. And that's why, if Sony were to offer the Z150 an S-LOG update for A$500 tomorrow, I think I'd have to snap it up. (It'd be a better option than spending A$4,300 for a Z90.)

And that's why I like your attitude. You're looking for ways, with the existing Z150 and its current options, to improve the highlight handling of this camera, rather than asserting that it can't be done.

And, by the way, I have the highest respect for Alister (I read Alister's blog post about HLG), who is a very helpful person. And Mark too.

But I cannot reconcile these two apparently contrary facts:

Mark: "HLG is not a shooting codec".
Sony engineers: "We've added HLG as a shooting codec."

At least, Cliff, you've been exploring WHY they added it.

[Ron Evans]

Originally Posted by David Knaggs

And, by the way, I have the highest respect for Alister (I read Alister's blog post about HLG), who is a very helpful person. And Mark too.

But I cannot reconcile these two apparently contrary facts:

Mark: "HLG is not a shooting codec".
Sony engineers: "We've added HLG as a shooting codec."

At least, Cliff, you've been exploring WHY they added it.

Exactly my point. There is a place for everything and to try and make everything respond in the same way is a little pointless. Each has its place. Looking at the 800% gamma of the new Canon XF400 series one can see it is very close to HLG but maybe the colour space is rec709 ? Not a big deal. Both tackle the issue of highlight recording. With the ability to shoot HLG UHD 60P one can do a single camera shoot of an event much like one did with tape. Save and show. That is very different from creating a film with a certain look and lots of editing. Yes I agree that if it is a 2020 colour space it will need some correcting for SDR 709 but if the local sets on display for sale are anything to go by it will be difficult to find a SDR set by next year !!! So putting by an archive with REC2020 is not going to be a problem.

[Jack Zhang]

Originally Posted by Steven Digges

So......back to the topic....

Was this new camera announcement a lost leader? A total bust??? It is past 6:00PM in NY. I searched and can't find anything but the rumors leading up to today.

Steve

A new camera was announced... A studio camera.

NABHUB: Sony Expands HXC Series with New Entry-level Full HD camera system Supporting Up-scaled 4K and HD-HDR for Studio and Live Applications

[Cliff Totten]

It's funny,...All these Sony 1 inch cameras over the last few years have all had what I think are harsh highlight handling. (Many other people on forums have complained of the same thing)

I think the reason why is that Sony must maintain a certain rec709 contrast level to keep looking "normal" for rec709 displays. I think Sony maps it's sensor readout levels to favor brighter shadows at the cost sacrificing the highlight level mapping. If rec709 is a 6-7 stop gamma curve than Sony is skewing that DR into the shadows to help them out instead.

Meanwhile, Panasonic's GH5 seems to do the opposite. Their rec709 sensor mapping seems to favor the highlights at the cost of crushing the shadows slightly. I dont think either is right or wrong. If you have an 11 stop sensor and you can only drop a 6-7 or even 8 stop gamma curve into it,....you got cut stops of DR off from somewhere, right?

Point being. With HLG, Sony has "fixed" the typical 1 inch sensor highlight readout mapping. It breaks away from Sony's "typical" rec709 style. I can say that the Z150's old "easily" blown highlights thing is now "fixed"....inadvertently by Sony with HLG.

So with HLG, you got a strong knee now about 60 or 70 IRE and typical 709 all under that. In post, how much you decide to bend (expand) that 70+ IRE back out again is your choice. No mater what you do with it,...the point is, at least you captured that signal in range without clipping.

This is important for a camera that only has HLG and no "FULL" log option. (As retarded as Sony was for not giving the Z150 Log like every other CHEAPER Sony camera under it with SLOG)

CT

[Paul Cronin]

Cliff,

I think you bring up great points, but I would not say the highlights are fixed on the Z150. It is a camera that has a hard time with highlights, and low DR.

[Cliff Totten]

You see highlight problems using HLG?

[Ron Evans]

Originally Posted by Mark Rosenzweig

I hope even if you have trouble with this, others making choices of what to shoot in will understand the issues. Or, they can just watch the Alistair Chapman video, which says the same thing - HLG is not a shooting codec.

You keep giving this reference of Alister not recommending shooting with HLG, even on other forums ( where just as many people disagree with you ) without answering my early question of detailing exactly where in Alister's video he says that. He says it is harder to grade, something not really intended with HLG in the first place. If you want to grade use a LOG format and for this I do not disagree with you. It is your comments and lack of understanding of HLG that is the issue. I do understand your point of view you clearly you do not understand others points of view or feel you have backed yourself into a corner and can't get out. If there was no reason to shoot video with HLG then Sony and Panasonic would not have implemented it on their cameras but focused on delivery hardware. And in the case of Sony get Alister to demonstrate it. The reason you do not understand is that there are people who want to shoot and show with no grading or editing or very little. The transition is like the introduction of colour and the mess created with NTSC so that older Black and White TV's were not left out. The intent was create for the new TV sets not the old and I believe the same is true with HLG. Motivation to buy a new TV set because it looks so much better.

[David Heath]

Originally Posted by Cliff Totten

If it uses the same FS700 sensor again with 1:1 readout, there is no chance in Hell that I'll buy it. Im not buying any more "4k" cameras that are made up of a green channel that is 1/2 4k resolution and 1/4 resolution on the red & blue channels.

CT

I think that's the wrong way of looking at it. It's better to think of YUV resolutions that the chip is capable of, than RGB, because that's what gets output. In which case, do the maths and (relative to 4K) you'll get a luminance figure of about .7 and a figure of .5 for U&V - true both vertically and horizontally.

So for the luminance figure, it's not "half 4K" - more like "three-quarters to two-thirds 4K"

And for chrominance, then yes, it's half - but think what's then going to happen. Subsampling to 4:2:0. In other words, even if you start off with 4k full chrominance resolution, you're not going to keep it.

And for a given sensor size, and all else equal, smaller photosites will likely mean worse sensitivity and/or DR. It will also mean far more complicated processing, though with the way technology is moving, that seems far less a problem than in the not too distant past.

And seriously, is that extra resolution that a 6k will give worth it for the vast majority of users? Really? I don't deny it will be there, but unless you really look hard at the pixel level, will anyone really see it?

I remember first seeing a demo of the first High Definition trials, and getting my socks blown off. Partly through it being the first 16:9 TV I'd ever seen (CRT, of course, it was that long ago! :-) ), but partly because it was just so much better than PAL pictures of the day. And this only on a 32" display. I couldn't wait for HD to become a broadcast reality, and with TVs of 50" far from uncommon in average living rooms, the difference between then and now is huge.

But.... 4k? Yes, in a showroom it looks impressive, but I find that to see any real difference my face is only a foot or so from the 50" or whatever screen - who's going to watch any programme like that? Theory says that at a typical viewing distance (about 2.8 metres in the UK), there's no point in a system better than 1080p for screen sizes up to at least 60". Extrapolate, and in real life, even one with perfect vision won't be able to distinguish between a 8.3 Megapixel sensor and "true" 4K resolution until you go above 100" screen size. The human eye simply isn't capable of it. Even in a cinema most of the rows won't tell much if any difference between 1080p and 4K. It's probably only the very front row that could realistically tell any difference between a 4k and a 6k sensor.

Frankly, whilst SD to HD was a real revolution, then it's difficult to feel the same about HD to UHD. Better, yes, but I can't help feeling it's driven far more by manufacturers perceiving big numbers sell. And consumers now simply feeling they must have the latest and greatest - regardless of whether it's really worthwhile.