Hi all. A very brief post as I've just got back to the hotel from a long day at Broadcast India.

I finally found a little bit of time to upload a couple of quick frame grabs from the Gemini. Sorry they are not Tiff's or the DPX files but time is scarce.

There are 3 frames: The graded S-Log, A Cinegamma 3 grab and the raw S-Log.

The increase in dynamic range over the cinegamma frame is clearly visible in the highlights outside the window as well as on the wall behind the actor.

I have to say I'm liking the Gemini a lot. The firmware is not quite there yet but it's very, very close with almost daily updates being released. Apart from an initial hiccup (which has now been rectified) the unit has been stable even in the Mumbai heat. It amazes me and everyone else that see's it that the little 5" monitor sitting on the handle of my F3 is also a 4:4:4 uncompressed recorder, its so compact compared to all the other alternatives. Being able to apply LUT's on the Gemini is also very neat.

The screen is super bright and easily viewable in direct sunlight. Im powering both the camera and the Gemini of a single Swit S-8U62 battery which gives me a little over 2 hours from a full charge.

It does generate some pretty big files, so I have been using Adobe Premier to transcode the clips to Apple ProRes 4:4:4 on ingest. This is taking a little longer than I expected, but then I am using a vintage MacBook Pro 3.1 and I guess is a small penalty to pay for the incredible image quality that I'm getting.

Combine all this with the soon to arrive EI-SLog firmware from Sony and it will all only get better and better.

Call me nuts, but out of the 3 grabs, I like the old good Cinegamma 3 the best :)

Of course I realize the S-log could be graded for a more punchy look, but I wonder how the relevant areas (behind the window highlights) would hold?

Dear Alister,

Thanks for posting.

It is very nice to hear that you like the Gemini 4:4:4.

I am very excited about the new Sony EI-SLog. That is a major advance and makes the already great Sony F3 even better.

There are 3 frames: The graded S-Log, A Cinegamma 3 grab and the raw S-Log.

Correct me if I am wrong, but the S-LOG and Cinegamma frames seem to be taken at the exact same instant. How can that be? You can't be using a Picture Profile and S-LOG at the same time. So are you saying that the Cinegamma grab is coming from a LUT? If so, that is hardly a fair comparison. There is absolutely no way that a stock LUT chosen from the camera's menu pages is going to provide the same kind of control as a full-blown Picture Profile. Personally, I don't care for the look of any of the built-in LUTs and I also know for sure that my favorite PP would handle the DR better than the example you have posted. Even the S-LOG frame is blown out. Why did you choose not to expose for the highlights outside the window?

Furthermore, even if the Cinegamma setting was coming from a Picture Profile, you cannot expect to expose for both S-LOG and a Picture Profile at the same time. They require different exposure settings, so any frame grab that captures both frames at the same instant is inherently flawed and of no use in judging the merits or either setting. A good comparison would be exposed for one . . . and then the other.

Did I miss something here? Please correct me if I am misunderstanding the purpose of this example.

Hey Doug,

Do you have access to a F3+S-Log?

I would like to shoot a set of charts to show the dynamic range expression change between the S-Log signal and the signal with a LUT applied. It is different but I don't have charts

Here is what I've observed. When I apply a viewing LUT the full dynamic range of the S-Log is not supplied. Both ends of the scale are clipped. The exact amount I can't say but my gut feeling is it is a stop on the bottom and a little more on the top. This is based on using the REC709+800% LUT.

This is really easy to see if you lock the camera down on a high contrast scene and toggle the LUT on and off while viewing the MONITOR port. We set up a shot where we were going from inside shadow out into full sun with bright blue sky with a few clouds. When we toggled the LUT on and off you could see the detail in the clouds completely disappear when REC709+800% enabled BUT the detail was there when the LUT was disabled.

This leaves me with the question - How do you most fairly compare the different gamma curves when they don't record the same amount of dynamic range? Correct exposure to retain highlight detail for S-Log is going to be different from any of the other gamma settings. If you expose for highlight detail in S-Log then highlights will be clipped on anything recorded with a LUT.

Quote; "If you expose for highlight detail in S-Log then highlights will be clipped on anything recorded with a LUT."

That is the core of what I am saying in my first post. You can't record a LUT, a Picture Profile, and S-LOG simultaneously and expect them all to look good. Impossible. You can only choose one at a time. So any testing where they are recorded at the same time is useless.

Yes, I have S-LOG, a real Leader waveform monitor, and DSC charts. There's more I'd like to say about LUTs, but I'll save my comments until I have done further testing of my own and can prove some of the things I believe to be true about working with S-LOG. It's not as easy as some people would have you believe.

Quote;
.... S-LOG. It's not as easy as some people would have you believe.

I don't know where you are coming from but shooting to S-Log and editing it is no more difficult than the internal SxS for me. In fact, I find shooting and downloading from the PIX240 to be *easier* and quicker than SxS cards because every computer I use has eSata and/or USB 3 ports whereas only one PC has an Expresscard to PCIe adapter (which I use for SxS).

Speaking of EI-SLog, besides being able to use ISO 800, what else is so great about it?

Steve, does your NLE have a S-Log LUT or are you just applying a color correction effect that you've made?

I don't know where you are coming from but shooting to S-Log and editing it is no more difficult than the internal SxS for me.

I am coming from the stand point of someone who chooses NOT to grade, but rather to to get the look I want at the time I record -- and at the camera's full, uncompressed capability. Believe it or not, I am still in the majority out there. Most people outside of Hollywood do not have the time, the budget, or care about the slight advantages of grading. If I always graded everything I shot, then yes, you are correct, S-LOG would be just as much a pain in the ass as any other Picture Profile that requires grading. Fortunately, that is not my workflow. Yours is different, and I appreciate that and would not try to talk you out of it. Two valid approaches to shooting. Different strokes for different folks.

The benefits of S-LOG may very well outweigh the workflow hassles and I may decide it is worth it to grade everyting -- but I have yet to see any examples of S-LOG that prove that to me. I look forward to doing my own testing when the next firmware is available.

Steve, does your NLE have a S-Log LUT or are you just applying a color correction effect that you've made?

I don't see any need for a LUT because a simple Curves adjustment makes the image look *normal*. All SLog does is remove the various gammas normally applied in order to maximize the dynamic range.

In this post, I show the SLog image from a PIX240 and then the image with a simple 'S' Curve applied to add contrast. http://www.dvinfo.net/forum/sony-xdcam-f3-cinealta/501492-f3-s-log-3db-neat-video-super-clean.html#post1688140
FYI, this was with 6 or 12db of gain so ISO 3200 or 6400 - gotta love it!

I am coming from the stand point of someone who chooses NOT to grade, but rather to to get the look I want at the time I record -- and at the camera's full, uncompressed capability. Believe it or not, I am still in the majority out there. Most people outside of Hollywood do not have the time, the budget, or care about the slight advantages of grading. If I always graded everything I shot, then yes, you are correct, S-LOG would be just as much a pain in the ass as any other Picture Profile that requires grading. Fortunately, that is not my workflow. Yours is different, and I appreciate that and would not try to talk you out of it. Two valid approaches to shooting. Different strokes for different folks.

The benefits of S-LOG may very well outweigh the workflow hassles and I may decide it is worth it to grade everyting -- but I have yet to see any examples of S-LOG that prove that to me. I look forward to doing my own testing when the next firmware is available.

http://www.dvinfo.net/forum/sony-xdcam-f3-cinealta/501715-new-firmware-updates-new-ei-s-log.html#post1689926
From your video in this posting, the sky looks great but there is very little to no detail in the trees.(I am looking at the thumbnail image) With S-Log, you would get another 2-3 stops of DR which would result in much more detail in the trees. Is that something you personally want? (I yearn for more DR which is why I love S-Log so much)

FYI, I know of a quick and easy way to apply effects to a list of files in After Effects and render to new files. Its something I learned from having to create proxies with burned TC.

Steve, of course I want more DR, who wouldn't? But in the case of the footage you are referring to, I'd probably grade it right back to the same look I already have. Even though you don't care for it, I actually like the way the trees look. If I wanted more detail in the dark areas of the picture I wouldn't be running my black levels so low in the first place. If I wanted the trees to look the way you would like them to look, I could have done that simply enough by just adjusting my PP. Sure having more DR is good, but that doesn't mean I simply want to give my picture a washed out appearance with nothing but middle tones. I actually like good contrast with nice deep blacks and whites that come right to the edge of clipping. If I can achieve that with a simple PP inside the camera instead of S-LOG and grading, then that is a superior workflow for me.

Don't misunderstand me, I would not be surprised at all to find that S-LOG is superior for certain high contrast situations, but all I'm saying is that I have yet to see the side-by-side proof. Where is the proof? Like I said, I'm hoping to do my own testing just as soon as I have the time. One thing I have learned over the last couple of years is not to assume anything about picture quality based on what sounds good on paper. I have a adopted a skeptical attitude about everything until proven otherwise. Some people apparently have already seen the proof they need about S-LOG, but I have not. I would LOVE to see the proof that makes me a believer.

Doug,

I think there is ample proof in that S-Log provides more dynamic range. If that DR is useful for how someone likes to work is another issue.


Steve,

I'm aware of doing a curves adjustment. But some examples I've seen of this that can look rather wonky at times. If find this happens mostly in the skin tones.

Also there's the issue standards, or lack there of when exchanging footage. Finally, if I'm mixing S-Log w/ non-S-Log, I have to be sure to apply the curves adjustment to just the S-Log segments--which can be quite a hassle if your NLE doesn't correct source clips but only segments that have been added to the timeline.

Not saying these are deal breakers, but if S-Log is going to be widely used in NLE's, I'd love for it to be more fully integrated.

Maybe you have seen "ample proof" in real-world situations, but I have not. Test charts are not the real world. And to my knowledge, nobody has really compared a very good, perfectly exposed Cinegamma PP to the same scene with properly exposed (and expertly graded) S-LOG. I guess I'm not doing a very good job of making my point, so I'll just leave it at that. I'll do my own testing when time permits. I'm sure will probably join the ranks soon of those who are sold on the benefits of S-LOG, I'm just looking for some decent examples to convince me.

The LUT applied image takes the sensor output and applies either REC-709, or HG1, while the S-Log output gives you S-Log.

It is exactly the same thing, if you look at the Cinegamma output on a WFM and compare to S-Log + HG Lut, you'll find them to be the same.

S-Log very clearly gives you a clear 1 to 1.5 stop dynamic range advantage. It's easily measurable. I played with a camera with a Beta of EI-S-Log at Sony Hong Kong yesterday and it's impressive to say the least, although I didn't have any equipment with which to make a meaningful measurement but it was clearly giving at least an extra 1.5 stops over the Cinegammas.

The nice thing is that by using the EI settings at 1600 you can see what the image will look like post grade with a bit of lift/gain in post. This allows you to then deliberately shoot slightly under exposed, knowing that the graded image will still be completely acceptable. This in turn means that you can give yourself more headroom when dealing with a high contrast scene.

While Doug's approach is certainly a very valid one and if it works for him and others then that is what you should do. However there are many situations where your scene has a range greater than 11 stops (the limit of the CG's) and no amount of in-camera tweaking will allow you to capture that in a pleasant way. S-Log gives you a significant increase in what you can capture plus it grades easily and painlessly when recorded in 10 bit 4:2:2 and above. 4:4:4 is preferable as this gives you better colour correction possibilities.

I think the EI S-Log upgrade is a significant one as the reduction in grain due to the lower base ISO will make post production lift/gain in shadows cleaner. Add to that the ability to pre visualise this in camera by adding EI (electronic equivalent) gain to the LUT makes this an extremely powerful tool.

If I am to understand, S-log is the equivalent of camera raw output for video, and the Gemini is for capturing the S-log feed in a manner that preserves maximum chroma detail for subsequent grading in post. Accordingly the S-log grab appears very flat and compressed, because you intend to stretch it back out in post.

With the cinegamma or standard gamma the image is burned in, so if it needs further correction in post, there's less to work with. So if like Doug you never make a mistake, always get it right, you don't need S-log.

I usually get it right too, but then why with dslr stills do I prefer shooting raw? Must be because it's pretty good insurance for capturing the scene in the entirety.

As for the opinions about certain looks, Piotr prefers cinegamma and Doug is highly critical of clipped highlights while accepting of crushed blacks. The latter makes little sense as it seems likely to displease as many who prefer shadow detail and don't care as much about clipped highlights. Since it's just opinion, mine is for std gamma R709 with well chosen knee settings to best preserve highlight AND shadow detail, followed by post grading only if necessary.

That said, if I had S-log and the Gemini 444, that is what I would use because you could ultimately achieve any look at any time through post edits, where if you made a mistake with your picture profile in-cam, that look will be burned-in.

S-Log isn't raw in the way that a DSLR, Red or F65 can shoot RAW. S-Log has R, G and B data for each pixel, RAW has only an R, G or B value for each pixel and has to be reconstructed in post to create an image that's not a mosaic of colors.

What S-Log does is allow the full dynamic range of the sensor to be recorded. This is accomplished by using a logarithmic curve for the encoding that decreases sensitivity as the image gets brighter. This is similar to how film records light and how our eyes see light.

What frequently gets lost in the S-Log discussion is that many modern sensors clip well past where the recorded image clips. This is for two reasons: 1) Sensor dynamic range is wider than what you could properly record w/ many codecs, e.g. XDCAM-EX. 2) Most video applications don't need or even want the extra dynamic range b/c it surpasses what most broadcast systems are designed to handle and display.

So in truth, if the highlights roll-off gracefully, the extra dynamic range is not needed or even desirable for a lot of the jobs that video cameras are used. But for cinema type applications, the extra DR can be very helpful, and S-Log fits well into existing film workflows. A main need for extra DR is time of day color correction. This is esp. true when shooting outside b/c the light is constantly changing, but shots from the morning may need to match those from noon and later. And of course, there is day for night shooting. And there are times when indoors that you actually want to see what's walking past that window facing outside.

But Doug is right in that the end product is frequently going to have less DR than S-Log provides, so it can be a lot of work for not much benefit, depending on how you work what you want your images to look like.

Hope that all accurate and helpful.

Thank you for that excellent explanation.

Since the crux of this discussion is about dynamic range, I thought a graph of a standard (HiDef) gamma curve versus the Hyper (Cine) and S-Log gamma curves might be interesting so I attached one at the bottom of this message.

Note that my niche is live broadcast video. The cameras I use have separate red, green, and blue imagers, not one sensor with a Bayer filter. I shade and paint (color grade) the pictures in real time; it's usually not done in post, unless I screw up. 90% of the time I use Sony broadcast cameras, and the curves in the graph below are the gamma curves that Sony uses in all their cameras (both single chip and three chip). Different brands of broadcast cameras have different "standard" and Hyper (Cine) curves, but the principle is the same. The "standard" HiDef gamma curve follows the Rec709 spec, and all camera brands will have at least the standard Rec709 gamma curve (or the 240M curve, which is very similar, differing mostly in the color matrix, not the gamma curve). Sony cameras have six "standard" gamma curves and four Hyper (Cine) gamma curves available for selection. In the "standard" gamma curves, Sony also lets you gently alter the standard curves with a master step gamma control (.50, .45, .40, .35, with the "standard" being .45, which leaves the curve tracking the Rec709 spec). In both the "standard" and Hyper (Cine) modes, Sony also gives you what they call "Black Gamma" which allows you vary the curve in a ±5% range at either 5%, 15%, 25%, or 35% input level. All of the gamma adjustments except the master step are individually available in red, green, and blue (as well as a master control that varies them all in sync). There are many knee controls available as well, but although they are relevant to dynamic range compression, this message is going to be long enough as is...

Note the difference in the graph below between a standard HiDef gamma curve (labeled R709 in the graph), and any of the Hyper (Cine) gammas and the even more severe S-Log curve. One can squeeze two to three stops more at the top without losing info the sensor is capable of resolving. Note also that the curves differ in the low and midrange as well. When one is "messing" with the gamma curve of a camera it's not just the "whites" (70%-100% input level) that are changed!

The whole purpose of all of this is to squeeze the dynamic range of life into something that we can view on television. Our eyes/brain already limit life's dynamic range, but film and video have a much more limited dynamic range. You can still squeeze more dynamic range out of film than video, but not a whole lot more, and film's advantage these days may lie more in the graceful way it handles overload (too much light) compared to video. (And maybe that film's grain is black and video's noise is white).

The camera sensor(s) we use these days can already capture more dynamic range than we can distribute on video. But simply altering the gamma curve of the camera to fit its total dynamic range into what can be recorded makes for a really ugly picture. The S-Log curve does just that. (And if you've ever looked at uncorrected S-Log video, you know how ugly it looks). Unfortunately, if you just apply a reverse S-Log curve to the video (via a LUT in production or color timing in post), it still doesn't look great. Much better than raw S-Log, and good enough to judge exposure, but not nearly as good as if you trim the gamma curve to fit to the picture you're grading.

To really take advantage of the sensor's expanded dynamic range, you have to understand how gamma curve changes effect the picture you're shooting. You can do it when you shoot or when you grade the picture in post. If you don't record a S-Log version when you shoot, your ability to further grade in post is severely limited compared to what you can do if you have a S-Log version. On the other hand, if you're shooting a show that's being broadcast live, or a show that won't be post graded, you can reap great benefit by setting the gamma curve in the camera appropriately for the content you're shooting.

When you've been playing with gamma curves for a while, you'll start to "just know" what camera settings benefit different shooting circumstances. While both shooting a classical orchestra indoors and shooting Eric Clapton in an open outdoor arena both benefit from using a Hyper (Cine) gamma table and trimming down the black gamma, the gamma curve used and the black gamma settings are completely different. In the former, one is generally looking to remove the bleaching effect on fingers, noses, cheeks, and bald heads of what is almost always too much top light (and preventing the sheet music from becoming a nuclear rectangle of white light); in the latter more severe correction is needed to deal with an audience in noon day sunlight and a stage with performers that's many stops less bright, both in the same picture. You set the iris to put the desired part of life's dynamic range on the less dynamic sensor, and you set the gamma curve to put the desired part of the sensor's dynamic range on the less dynamic video. With the iris you can only move the top and bottom of the range, together, without altering the dynamics of what's in that range; with the gamma curve, you can also alter the dynamics within the range you are recording/broadcasting/viewing.

The graph below gets much larger, with much more detail, if you click on it (or download it). The HG1, HG2, HG3, and HG4 curves correspond to the four Sony Hyper Gamma curves. In the broadcast world, we usually set our white clippers to 102%, and we assume that somewhere along the line they'll probably be clipped to 100%. HG3 and HG4 were calculated by Sony to work properly if one opens up the white clippers in the camera to 110%, and expects that the signal won't be clipped lower until after the grading is done in post. None the less, HG3 and HG4 happen to work fine if you set your white clips to 100%-102% anyway, and are less severe than HG1 and HG2. HG3, for example, works really well for classical orchestras.

By the way, if I'm not mistaken, the "S" in S-Log stands for Sony...

Billy

Billy, fantastic post! I've never seen such a thorough and easy to understand explanation of the gamma options -- especially since it comes from someone with actual hands-on experience on real shoots instead of theory or charts. Sounds like you're exactly the kind of VC I used to love learning from back in the days when I was working on trucks. Thanks for your input.

Dear Billy,

Great Post!

Thank you very much for taking the time and effort to post your experience and knowledge!

Where S-Log really comes into it's own is in situations where the DoP needs to capture as much dynamic range as possible so that the down stream colourist can manipulate the image in post production. Compared to REC-709 (the standard to which most HD TV's are adjusted) the shape of the curve means that there is a lot of gain/lift in the shadow and low key parts of the image with less and less gain as you go up the curve, reducing to almost zero close to where the sensor/DSP itself reaches it's limit.

The benefit that this brings in post is that generally speaking, low key areas will be reduced in brightness to increase how contrasty the image looks. The reduction in low key level will also decrease the appearance of noise in the image. Well exposed S-Log will require minimal gamma adjustment to skin tones and natural textures such as plants and foliage. Then highlights can be tweaked to suit the mood of the shot. As our own visual system is naturally less acute to subtle highlight and extreme light levels, large inaccuracies and inconsistencies in these areas will go largely un-noticed.

Cinegammas/Hypergammas share some of these characteristics, however they have very similar gain levels to Rec-709 at the lower end of the curve so low key parts of the image look more natural without grading. If you did have the same lifted shadow areas, recorded with just 8 bit data, you would very often run into banding and quantisation noise issues when pulling the levels back down. With a live camera feed, which is normally 10 bit or uncompressed component, you don't have the added problem of encoding and compression artefacts to deal with.

Simple, quick turnaround projects, run of the mill TV work etc will still in most cases be best dealt with by carefully setting up the camera with a conventional gamma and only minimal post production grading. However S-Log brings clear benefits for workflows where the image will be manipulated in post, not just in terms of the increased dynamic range but also the way it grades cleanly.

Right (of course) as what can be noticed in the graph is that HG 1 and 2 flatline at the right side. In contrast (pun intended) the S-Log curve is still sloping upward, recording meaningful values.

Cinegammas/Hypergammas share some of these characteristics, however they have very similar gain levels to Rec-709 at the lower end of the curve so low key parts of the image look more natural without grading.

Actually, if you look more closely at the curves, you'll see that S-Log is much closer to Rec709 in the dark areas (below 40%) than any of the Hyper gamma curves. That's one of the reasons why pulling down the black gamma when running Hyper gamma makes for a much nicer picture.

If you did have the same lifted shadow areas, recorded with just 8 bit data, you would very often run into banding and quantisation noise issues when pulling the levels back down.

While one might run into banding/quantization when grossly stretching out a section of video, the same doesn't happen when shrinking it (pulling the black levels down). In fact, the opposite happens. And the cameras I work with have 12 (and occasionally 14) bit data, not 8 bit. We are talking about Hyper (Cine) gamma here, which happens in the camera.

Simple, quick turnaround projects, run of the mill TV work etc will still in most cases be best dealt with by carefully setting up the camera with a conventional gamma and only minimal post production grading.

As I said in my post, I think that S-Log has definite advantages when one is shooting with post grading in mind. Hyper (Cine) gamma can be used to GREAT advantage in simple, quick turnaround, run of the mill TV work, and for what it's worth, the last two Emmy Award statues I won were for shows where I used Hyper gamma; neither of the shows were simple, quick, or run of the mill.

Billy

Billy,

Thanks MUCH for your excellent contributions to this discussion. I just want to assure you that after having read Alister's posts and seeing his tests over the years, there is nothing egotistical about the gentleman.

/resume normal programing :)

Thanks MUCH for your excellent contributions to this discussion. I just want to assure you that after having read Alister's posts and seeing his tests over the years, there is nothing egotistical about the gentleman.

I've only been following this interesting thread passively (as neither my technical knowledge, not the equipment I can afford using do not entitle me to take an active part in it) - but I must say that with the above statement, Peter is absolutely right!

Hyper (Cine) gamma can be used to GREAT advantage in simple, quick turnaround, run of the mill TV work, and for what it's worth, the last two Emmy Award statues I won were for shows where I used Hyper gamma; neither of the shows were simple, quick, or run of the mill.
Billy

Absolutley True. This is exactly what I have been trying to say for many months but a lot of people seem totally fixated on over complicating the issue of getting great results from the F3. I would even go so far as to say that I can achieve nearly the same results for broadcast (8 bit delivery) with Cine (hyper) gamma -- as can be achieved with S-LOG. Okay, for heavy grading, CG, theatrical delivery with a 10-bit projector or transfer to film, S-LOG probably makes a better choice. But that's not my market, and I suspect not the market of most us hanging out here at DVinfo.

And the camera's normal paint menus can do what they do with no workflow hassles, no expensive firmware updates, and no expensive external recorders. The F3, right out of the box, has some amazing capabilites built right into it if someone cares to take the time to paint it properly and then (very important) expose correctly. Yes, it is less forgiving than S-LOG, but I prefer not to shoot sloppy. I approach all my shooting as if I was shooting for a live broadcast on everything I capture. The picture looks great on the client monitor while shooting (the built-in LUTS do not!!) and the footage is immediately ready for editing.

For those who say differently, I'd love to see some examples of your work. No frame grabs, no charts and no table-top still lifes. Where is the real-world video that proves what you're talking about? I've seen Billy's work many times and I know he can walk the walk.

BTW, I think this thread should be moved to the F3 forum since it has very little to do with Convergent Design.

Moved to Sony F3 forum from Conv. Design, per suggestion. Topic deals more with the F3 than with Gemini.

And the camera's normal paint menus can do what they do with no workflow hassles, no expensive firmware updates, and no expensive external recorders. The F3, right out of the box, has some amazing capabilites built right into it if someone cares to take the time to paint it properly and then (very important) expose correctly. Yes, it is less forgiving than S-LOG, but I prefer not to shoot sloppy. I approach all my shooting as if I was shooting for a live broadcast on everything I capture. The picture looks great on the client monitor while shooting (the built-in LUTS do not!!) and the footage is immediately ready for editing.


I don't know about the F3, but you could get a great range of looks in camera with the Panasonic SDX 900's paint box. You could see instantly how the set colours were working on the monitor rather than waiting for post.

Brian, it's the exact same way with the F3 and all the other XDCAM cameras. Dial in your "look" in-camera and then lock it in and start shooting. No grading or correcting necessary -- unless you're looking for an extreme look or have to push the footage through a lot of CG. Of course, if you can't decide what look you want, or can't be bothered to nail the exposure properly, then that is where S-LOG comes in handy. There aren't that many shooting situations I run into where a couple extra stops of dynamic range is really going to make a big difference vs. all the other 3rd party gear and workflow hassle that are involved to work with S-LOG. That's my opinion today, but I reserve the right to change it after doing more real-world testing.

Just as one shouldn't "look down" on getting the pictures right in the first place, one also shouldn't look down on being able to take advantage of what S-Log provides. I'm not trying to play the devil's advocate to my previous message about Gamma Curves and Dynamic Range, but I do appreciate that having the ability to utilize the sensor's full range after the fact is very powerful stuff...

Being given the choice is always the best way, in my book.

Billy

The camera does give you the option of going either way, depending on your workflow of choice and your schedule.

While one might run into banding/quantization when grossly stretching out a section of video, the same doesn't happen when shrinking it (pulling the black levels down). In fact, the opposite happens. And the cameras I work with have 12 (and occasionally 14) bit data, not 8 bit. We are talking about Hyper (Cine) gamma here, which happens in the camera.

When you pull the blacks down with an 8 bit recording as in the F3 internal recordings, you will often get banding in the area of the image just above where you have done the pull down as you will create a bit starved area between your original exposure and the parts of the image (blacks/mids) where you have reduced your levels and this can lead to banding. When stretching or squeezing different parts of an 8 bit image you have to consider what is happening around the periphery of the manipulated areas.

If you have 100 even spaced grey shades and then take the bottom 50 and crush them to fit in the space occupied by 25 original steps, then there must either be a big jump between level 25 and 50 or levels 50 to 100 are now stretched to fill 25 to 100. In either case banding can become an issue.

Absolutely true; when you compress in one area, you expand in another. And this is why it's semi-worthless to shoot in S-Log and record in 8-bit, with the expectation to make things wonderful in post.

But regardless of whether you record internally in the F3 (which I am not familiar with, but I trust that you are, and that the recordings are indeed 8-bit), when you are using Hyper (Cine) Gamma, you are working with at least 10 bits, probably 12, maybe even 14, but certainly not 8; the 10 (or 12/14) bit world of the camera part of the F3 is where you're making the changes, long before the video is recorded, and there's plenty of information to stretch and compress. And since you're making the alterations in the camera, you're not likely to have to make huge gamma changes in post, meaning even an 8-bit recording should look fine, with no banding or quantization artifacts.

Not only are Hyper (Cine) Gammas much less severe than S-Log, and hence require less stretching and compressing, but on rare occasion I have done some extreme compressions with zero banding or quantization in the areas (35%-65% input levels) above it. (-40 to -50 setting of the black gamma, bringing the 35% area back down 15% to make up for the lift of one of the more severe Hyper (Cine) gammas).

Billy