So leaving Zebra 1 at 70 is supposedly the best indication for properly exposed Caucasian skin tones (acc. to Piotr) and getting Zebra 2 stripes should only occur on the absolute brightest values (sun on chrome, water reflections,etc.)?

In general you don't want to burn out highlights, so Z2 stripes should be avoided if possible. The histogram is very useful for checking that you haven't burnt out portions of the image, and for ensuring a good range of tones. The camera provides several indications of exposure and it's just a matter of testing, being critical of your results, and adopting a technique that works for you.

Serena: My problem is not so much technical as my poor eyes and the very bright desert. As i said over at the "High Light" post I have not found a hooded setup that allows me to use the LCD and the viewfinder is poor so I'm having problems just seeing the Zebras so i think I'm being over cautious. Last Spring when it was not so bright I had no problem but now I'm blinded by the light.

Heres some EX1 film look :) Shot with Canon F-1, 85mm f1.2 L lens on Fuji 400 asa film

Z2 setting has its problems though. While zebras hit at 100, it is possible to push to 109 before blow out. 100 might be safe for "broadcast" but there are many circumstances where 109 zebra would be useful instead.

In short, you can hit Z2 and you might not be clipping yet (actually losing information in the highlights).

Perhaps the answer is to add an eyepiece to your hood (copying the EX3 approach). If I knew how to link in a photo of mine, I would. Maybe this? http://www.dvinfo.net/gallery/showimage.php?i=961
and this
http://www.dvinfo.net/gallery/showimage.php?i=962&c=2

The eyepiece is made from two +3.5 diopter spectacle lenses (making 7 diopter). Flips up for direct viewing of screen. Made of 6mm foam core, so very light, if not convenient enough (doesn't fold) for normal use -- just a proof of concept.

im building one of those at the moment. The Tupperware Update!

Alex, I did in fact build one of these but with no lens but made for both eyes. It was too heavy and strained the LCD hinge. Can you disclose what you are doing?

Mike

You mean like this/ Made since my last post. It has a graduated vari-focal lens in eye-piece.

Mike

Mike, yes, that's the way. Actually you shouldn't need a graduated vari-focal, but I guess you had that on hand; single focal length is what you need. I bought a pair of generic "reading glasses" and took the lenses out of the frames. $4 at the bargain shop.

Serena: You got screwed. 99 cents here for reading glasses in the 99centsonly store!

The vari-focal is there because I'm in the process of surgery on both eyes and they are always changing and I have no prescription lenses at the mo., and as you say, it was on hand.

Another feature of the one I made and shown is that the tube telescopes, so I can use it to focus.

Mike

The focusing feature is a good idea and I'll add that when I get to prototype stage (fixed is fine for a single user).

Moving back to "film look", I've just noticed that my American Cinematographer Manual says in relation to telecine: "film look refers to the appearance of a print as seen in direct projection......the subjective appearance of the image with its smoothly graduated highlight and shadow contrast".
But, as we've seen, it means many things to many people.

I admire your DIY viewfinders, but have been thinking of another approach (the EX3 being a bit too expensive for me to upgrade any time soon).

Can anyone in touch with Sony service ask whether it's viable to replace the poor EVF with that of the Z7 camera? I always wondered why Sony put the Xtrafine EVF on the Z7 but not on the EX1, and - after EX3 announcement - concluded they did it on purpose, to make the EX3 even more attractive...

So, if someone has an opportunity to ask about it (and costs involved), please do so and share it with the rest of us. Ideally, if it proves to be just a swap operation, buying the Z7's Xtrafine unit and mounting it ourselves would be great...

You might have noticed that the X3 doesn't have an EVF. Just the LCD. That is a far superior approach.

Yes Serena, exactly - but since I have an EX1 and NOT an EX3, I am talking about a good, IMHO, way to get both: a great LCD, and a usable EVF. The latter from the Z7, if I am still unclear:)

My guess is that Sony would not want to start treating their EX-1s as lego-type designs, switching parts out with their other models. They create a better model and want to sell it to us, rather than upgrade our existing model to more closely resemble their pricier one. But, hey, if someone gets Sony to do that then that is great news.

Would it not be better to see if you can get the LCD hood for the EX3 and put it on the EX1? I wonder how much a replacement hood would be and if it is detachable or hinged permanently to the EX3 LCD.

For me, my telescoping unit cost only the lens from a discarded pair of specs and a cardboard box. I had to steal the eye cup from the viewfinder when I realized I did not have a spare. Funny, the Z1 had two eye cups and I only just now noticed the EX1 only has one.

So the question is: why do you want both? Everyone agrees that the EVF isn't great -- useful but not up to the standard of the camera. The LCD on the EX1 is the same as on the EX3 and the obvious thing is to copy the EX3 approach. The problem, as Mike mentioned, is that the EX3 has a much more robust mounting for its LCD, so one has to be careful in translating the EX3 system to the EX1. However our simple "proof of principle" tests have shown it is possible and so effective that I have switched off the EVF. Now for some work on developing a very light-weight yet robust prototype hood. Maybe the EX3 hood is the best answer; but it will be expensive and may be too heavy.

One can wish for many things in a camera, and generally the more you pay the more of them you get. A camera is a tool, like a hammer or a saw, and you can use it to make beautiful things, as does Phil Bloom with his EX1, or you can sit around asking why your hammer doesn't incorporate a saw.

The answer is simple: the great EX3 wievfinder works best when the camera is shoulder monunted, i.e. with the EX1 body shape.

For shooting EX1 handheld, or on additional mount like the "El Cheapo", its original EVF would be better for me, should it have enough resolution.

EVF on EX1 vs Z7? What is the actual difference?

From reading all the posts on "film look", I think that there is a wide range of subjective qualities but I think the point can be summed up as, "not video look". I agree that seeing the Show Scan 60p film projection demos, proved to me that for artsy stuff, I don't want film to look like reality. But for sports and reality shows, 60fps is the way to go, baby.

I second Carl. As there is so much superfluous and silly talk about what is "film look" the other side of the coin, IE "not video look" is so much more sensible as it is so easy to judge. I always say to myself "does this look like home video?"

Avoid the things video cameras can't do like high contrast or extreme bright light that kills shadow detail and you are well on your way. That's why I believe polaroid and graduated filters are a must.

Well, the actual difference is some 200,000 vs 1,200,000 pixels of resulution between the two.

Of course, this has nothing to do with the "film look", hence with the second part of your post.

Piotr: And getting the film look is all about the skill to make 200k pixels look like 1200k pixels. The look is about photographic skill not pixels. I could make a 1200k pixel clip that looked like home video and there are lot of great cinematographers like Phil who can make 200k pixels look like 1200k film.

Mike, I only mean it's easier to judge focus with a higher resolution VF !

Hope this is obvius

Mike, quite right.

Piotr, there is no impediment to shooting the EX1 on a shoulder mount when using the LCD. Not that I believe you wish to consider this.

Serena, how on earth can you know about all shoulder mounts/shooting techniques one can use? Using either the PAG Orbitor, or the "El cheapo" shoulder mount (I have both), the camera is quite high and the LCD just too close to my eyes (I'm 53, so I'm getting more and more long-sighted). One way of course is to use strong reading glasses, but since I don't wear them permanently, and when you add the sun reflections problem to the equation - using the "tranditional" EVF is the best solution.

And all I am saying is that the EVF on the EX1 is poor resolution-wise, so replacing it with that from the Z7 would solve two problems at once.

Yes, Piotr, I understand that perfectly. I guess you'd be surprised that some body would have that breadth of knowledge. You have taken on a rigid rejection of alternatives and I respect your unwillingness to see other approaches. If you were to check out the photos I posted you might have to find more excuses, but that's OK. Good luck with getting Sony to re-engineer the EX1.

re EX1 vs Z7 EVF resolution
 

Wow - that is unbelievable. How does that work out pixel dimension wise?
360x640 vs 1280x720 would make sense, but the numbers don't match.

What is Sony thinking, why would they do this? Now I am curious what the resolution on my Z1 EVF is, anyone know or where I could find out?

The Z1 and EX1 EVF's are nearly exactly the same - i.e. very poor.

The Xtrafine one on the Z7 resolution is counted differently (multiplied x3 for R, G, B values) - but nevertheless, it's a marvellous viewfinder.

What were they thinking? Well, I guess they already knew about the EX3 coming soon after the EX1, and wanted to make the difference even bigger!

Its great to see this discussion unfold! If I didn't know any better, I'd swear that Philip Bloom's stuff was film all the way. Whatever his formula is, it works! I remember reading in his blog that he shoots most of his stuff at 25p (PAL). he doesn't have a lot of fast-paced footage, though. He also is big on Magic Bullet Looks. Anyone know anything else about his methods/settings/work flow?

http://web.mac.com/philip.bloom/Bloo...2_29F3881EDCB6

Philip's entry is about half way in the comments.

As an ex-Limey I can tell you one reason is the soft diffused (read cold and grey) English light. Secondly he avoids color - a lot of Phil's stuff is almost monochrome, and he generally has his camera locked down - no pans or zooms. I believe he told me he shoots 24p not 50 PAL. And yes he is heavy on the Bullet and I've asked his settings but he didn't (wouldn't?) tell me.

Bloom shoots 30p, and I am quite sure he has his picture profile listed in his blog. i know because i copied it onto my EX1.

You gotta love that Google...
http://web.mac.com/philip.bloom/Bloo...ngs_i_use.html

Phil Bloom does (at least a while ago) use the Cine 1 profile detailed by Bill Ravins in the profile thread of this forum. He also nearly always uses the Letus adapter with 35mm lenses. He is virtually shooting in 35mm. I think this is a big factor in the "look" of his films, as well as the use of Magic Bullet Looks in post.

Phil Bloom: "I generally shoot 25p"