|
Re: Venice evaluation
Colin Elves
I had a quick look at the Venice files. Thank you for those!
I must say Geoff, Your methodology is fantastic: using the same chart and test image each time really takes out a lot of the variation and allows comparison with tests shot over a period of time. The only thing is: looking at the Venice images, you have +5 stops to -5stops of range but the Alexa (for example) is +4 to -4 In the Venice I can see it clips at +5 but not +4. Likewise I can see the Alexa doesn’t clip at +4. But I have no idea where it does clip! Is it +5 same as the Venice? or does it clip at +6 or +7 or... As that makes quite a big difference, no? Certainly the Venice looks cleaner at -4 than the Alexa. But without know if the Alexa clips later we’re not comparing like with like. If the Alexa has more headroom and we rate it lower to match, it might well look cleaner 8 stops under clip than the Venice. Or am I missing something? Is there a +5 clip from the Alexa somewhere? I know Arri say the Alexa has 7.8 stops of latitude above middle grey @ ISO 800. Does anyone know what Sony says the clip point of the Venice is? I always think it’s harder for manufacturers to be ‘optimistic’ about the clip point - unlike all their other DR ratings? Although I suppose you could work it out by checking the relative values of the mid grey and clipped white chips on the DSC chart. Thanks! Colin Elves Director of Photography Berlin/London |
|
|
|
Re: Sony VENICE camera - word on the street
coryw9@...
The 500 ISO doesn't bother me. I have been setting my ISO to 400 on most Alexa jobs to get the "cleaner" low-light look.
I am interesting to know if you have to overexpose the Venice like all of Sony's Camera's. I find I have to be around +1 over get a true clean image out of the Sony Cameras. From any flavor of Sony, A7s-F65. ND system is clutch though! Cory C. Warner www.corywarner.com LA |
|
|
|
Re: Venice evaluation
Colin Elves
This is an argument for providing Raw files rather than EXRs though. Then those of us who like to download the files and play around with them ourselves can compare them within our own preferred workflow.
toggle quoted message
Show quoted text
Geoff very kindly provided Vimeo links for those who just want to look at videos with a common workflow. Colin Elves Director of Photography Berlin/London On 24 Mar 2018, at 21:24, David Fuller <david@...> wrote: |
|
|
|
Re: Venice evaluation
GBoyle
There's a lot of assumptions in there.
There are Sony or BMD switchable options in Resolve.
Noisier images from Resolve that Sony Raw? Well you've already said you don't know how to use Resolve!
I think your understanding of where the IDTs come from is wrong as well.
If I don't use manufacturers software where possible I get grief for not doing so.
Geoff Boyle NSC
ACES Mentor
Sent from Blue
On 24 Mar 2018, at 21:01, alister@... wrote:
|
|
|
|
Re: Venice evaluation
Ulf Soderqvist
This is very much my experience with footage from the F65. Sony's raw viewer is giving me, by far, a much more pleasing result in terms of noise and color fidelity as well. From my experience especially skin tones. Ulf Soderqvist DP LA On Sat, Mar 24, 2018, 1:03 PM <alister@...> wrote:
|
|
|
|
Re: Venice evaluation
Comparing raw to raw is a nice idea, but in practice it means comparing raw and a raw converter through the operator’s skill at using that raw converter with another raw and another raw converter through the operator’s skill at using the other raw converter. It would introduce so many points of variance into a test as to make comparative testing next to useless.
toggle quoted message
Show quoted text
That’s compounded by the practical reality that most of us work with colorists who are not likely to be willing to use a different software platform for every camera we shoot on. It’s important for a camera to fit into the whole production ecosystem. David Fuller Director/camera geek Maine, USA On Mar 24, 2018, at 4:02 PM, Noel Sterrett <noel@...> wrote: |
|
|
|
Re: Venice evaluation
Noel Sterrett
On 03/24/2018 04:01 PM,
alister@... wrote:
I’ve always been able to get less noisy images from Sony’s raw and X-OCN by using Sony’s Raw Viewer rather than ACES or any other process within Resolve in general. Interpreting a Bayer sensor is an art as well as a science. Sony uses a great deal of Open Source software in their products. I believe they are doing themselves a disservice by not publishing their RAW file format as Arri has done so that others could work for free, at improving their images. Cheers. --
|
|
|
|
Re: Venice evaluation
Noel Sterrett
On 03/24/2018 03:07 PM, Colin Elves wrote: Isn’t the danger here that you’re, in part, you are now comparing how good the manufacturer’s software is at converting into EXRs? These cameras are all Bayer pattern sensors. De-Bayering from RAW is arguably the most important step in the process. It's analogous to developing film, but can be done multiple times in multiple ways, and also be redone. Ideally, Bayer pattern developing software would allow selection of multiple algorithms as well as control over the individual pattern elements. Resolve only offers two de-Bayer choices: Resolve and Sony, but some adjustments can be made to the RAW values before conversion. EXR's are useful particularly for transport between programs, but for camera comparisons I would prefer to compare RAW with RAW. Cheers. --
|
|
|
|
Re: Venice evaluation
alister@...
I don’t think BlackMagic are using a Sony SDK for Venice as I don’t think the SDK is ready yet. I suspect they are using whatever it is they created for the F55 (which is not based on a Sony SDK). I’ve always been able to get less noisy images from Sony’s raw and X-OCN by using Sony’s Raw Viewer rather than ACES or any other process within Resolve in general. There is certainly more in the shadows than revealed by the standard Resolve IDT. The Blackmagic IDT just doesn’t quite seem right. Having said that I do use Resolve to grade my Sony footage, mainly because it’s accessible and what a lot of other people use. My understanding is that BlackMagic roll their own IDT’s rather than using manufacturers IDT’s or SDK's. One benefit is that Resolve often supports new formats before anything else. The down side is that they might not always be properly optimised as per the manufacturers specs. Geoff I am assuming though that you used Raw Viewer to create the ACES EXR’s? But even this process will have certain characteristics that may not be in the original files. Plus, while you might be able to replicate similar adjustments in your grading software you no longer have the ability to dig into the metadata and de-bayer controls. |
|
|
|
Re: Venice evaluation
Colin Elves
Ah. This is interesting.
toggle quoted message
Show quoted text
Would this be a level playing field though? Isn’t the danger here that you’re, in part, you are now comparing how good the manufacturer’s software is at converting into EXRs? Rather than the camera’s themselves. Also: If the manufacturer’s software (or SDK in grading software) is a standard part of the workflow wouldn’t that make it more level? So providing the raw frames would be more representative of how they are used in the ‘real world’. Surely we’re assessing the whole image chain, not just the first part? Just playing devil’s advocate here. On 24 Mar 2018, at 14:02, Geoff Boyle <geoff.cml@...> wrote:
|
|
|
|
Re: Venice evaluation
Nick Shaw
It would be interesting to compare what the raw controls can dig out of the X-OCN to what can be achieved using Base Grade in Baselight 5.0. That responds in many ways more like raw controls than traditional grading operators. There is a limit to what can be done differently "in the deBayer". Most raw processing is in fact done with RGB (or sometimes XYZ) image data, and could be reproduced with the appropriate maths applied to ACES linear data.
toggle quoted message
Show quoted text
ACES EXRs could be loaded into the free version of Prelight to test this. Nick Shaw Workflow Consultant Antler Post U.K. On 24 Mar 2018, at 13:38, alister@... wrote: |
|
|
|
Re: Venice evaluation
Geoff Boyle
Don't use LGG use log controls in ACES in Resolve
Cheers
Geoff Boyle NSC
Cinematographer
EU based
+31 (0)637155076
On 24 Mar 2018, at 14:39, alister@... wrote:
|
|
|
|
Re: Sony VENICE camera - word on the street
alister@...
I would agree with this. In particular there is something very pleasing about the way the extreme highlights look that is nicer than the F55. I don’t really see that big an improvement in over exposure range at the base ISO, but the top end of the top stop just looks more natural for some reason. The main DR improvement is in the shadows where the low noise allows you to really dig a long way into the darkest parts of the image. Or rate the camera at 800 or 1000 ISO to really extend the highlights. |
|
|
|
Re: Venice evaluation
alister@...
All I am saying is that in Resolve, Lift/Gamma/Gain offset etc in ACES yield markedly different results to using the metadata sliders and I personally find I am able to pull more useable data out of the shadows and highlights using the metadata sliders than using the normal grading controls. I haven’t tested this with other cameras in depth so don’t know whether this is a Venice specific thing. I’m not surprised by this as there may be benefits or changes to the way the de-bayer algorithm operates depending on whether the exposure is being offset or not. I don’t know what secret sauce is, or is not happening inside the IDT. Maybe this is because I’m not a colourist and am doing something wrong, maybe it’s down to some quirks in the way Resolve implements ACES or performs the IDT on the Venice material, I honestly don’t know. I do know that both Pablo and I have sen some very odd behaviour in Resolve colour managed and ACES workflow transforms that neither of us can explain. I understand the level playing field approach, but I would urge caution as that is only a level playing field if every IDT for every camera is perfect and totally lossless. Myself, I would rather just see the original files as they come from the camera as this is an important part of understanding how easy it is going to be to work with that camera and how it is going to behave in a real world scenario. Not everyone is going to convert to EXR first. Others may disagree with this. You are damned if you do, damned if you don’t. |
|
|
|
Re: Sony VENICE camera - word on the street
From our
experience filming in Cartagena, the dynamic range is about 1 1/2 more compared
to the f55, especially because of the improvement in the signal-to-noise ratio,
but I would highlight two important improvements, the first is that the way in
which the detail disappears in the high lights is much softer than previous
cameras and second that skin tone is now more natural, with more texture and
with a great gradations of color with a lot of subtlety. Regards |
|
|
|
Re: Sony VENICE camera - word on the street
Jeremey Shelton
But sometimes you want the path of least resistance from A to B; that’s why I asked the question of how they compare “out of the box” in both color and DR / rolloff. At the price point these cameras come in I would think you’d want the fewest “workarounds” possible but perhaps that’s just me and my particular workflow.
-- - Jeremey |
|
|
|
Re: Venice evaluation
Geoff Boyle
The idea is to have a level playing field.
All cameras are output to 16bit EXR in ACES AP0 using manufacturers software where possible.
Are you suggesting that the Venice outputs more data than ACES can handle?
Cheers
Geoff Boyle NSC
Cinematographer
EU based
+31 (0)637155076
On 24 Mar 2018, at 13:58, alister@... wrote: Its a shame these weren’t saved as original raw or X-OCN frames (You can extract single frames using Sony’s Raw Viewer). Then you could use the metadata tools in Resolve to adjust the exposure, lift, gamma, gain, shadows, mid and highlight levels used for the de-bayer. I’ve found that Venice material has a lot of stuff way down in the shadows that is easiest to recover using the metadata shadow and lift controls. Same with the extreme highlight range. You get very nice exposure shifts simply by using the metadata ISO control. |
|
|
|
Re: Venice evaluation
alister@...
Its a shame these weren’t saved as original raw or X-OCN frames (You can extract single frames using Sony’s Raw Viewer). Then you could use the metadata tools in Resolve to adjust the exposure, lift, gamma, gain, shadows, mid and highlight levels used for the de-bayer. I’ve found that Venice material has a lot of stuff way down in the shadows that is easiest to recover using the metadata shadow and lift controls. Same with the extreme highlight range. You get very nice exposure shifts simply by using the metadata ISO control.
toggle quoted message
Show quoted text
|
|
|
|
Re: Venice evaluation
Mark Kenfield
Thanks Colin, Geoff and Nick, Both of those methods seem to work a treat. Using the OFX tool Colour Space Transform in YRGB mode, lets me get back to SLOG3/Sgamut3.cine (or close enough at least). And ACEScct + no IDT + rec709 ODT brings me to a neutral Rec709 space in ACES. On 24 March 2018 at 22:19, Nick Shaw <nick@...> wrote: If you don't want to work in ACES mode, you can use the ResolveFX Color Space Transform to convert to e.g. S-Log3 / S-Gamut3.Cine, so you can, for example, use a LUT designed for that. |
|
|
|
Re: Venice evaluation
Nick Shaw
If you don't want to work in ACES mode, you can use the ResolveFX Color Space Transform to convert to e.g. S-Log3 / S-Gamut3.Cine, so you can, for example, use a LUT designed for that.
toggle quoted message
Show quoted text
You will need to convert both the gamma (linear to S-Log3) and gamut (ACES AP 0 to S-Gamut3.Cine). ACES also has a different white point, so you will need to apply a chromatic adaptation from ACES white (~D60) to D65. I am not in front of a Resolve system right now, so I don't know how (or if) the Color Space Transform effect handles white point adaptation. Nick Shaw Workflow Consultant Antler Post U.K. On 24 Mar 2018, at 10:16, Mark Kenfield <mark@...> wrote: |
|
|