|
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 messageShow 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 messageShow 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 messageShow 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 messageShow 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:
|
|
|
|
Re: Venice evaluation
Geoff Boyle
No, the files are ACES linear
Cheers
Geoff Boyle NSC
Cinematographer
EU based
+31 (0)637155076
On 24 Mar 2018, at 11:20, Colin Elves <colin@...> wrote: Try using DaVinci Colour Managed instead of ACES, then go into the OXF panel in the colour tab and add a colour space transform from linear to Slog3
|
|
|
|
Re: Venice evaluation
Geoff Boyle
No probs,
No IDT Resolve uses the Sony SDK directly.
So ACEScct no IDT 709 ODT you're fixed!
Try using offset only to correct exposure.
Cheers
Geoff Boyle NSC
Cinematographer
EU based
+31 (0)637155076
On 24 Mar 2018, at 11:16, Mark Kenfield <mark@...> wrote:
|
|
|
|
Re: Venice evaluation
Colin Elves
Try using DaVinci Colour Managed instead of ACES, then go into the OXF panel in the colour tab and add a colour space transform from linear to Slog3
toggle quoted messageShow quoted text
(I haven’t looked at them myself by the way, but this should work). Colin Elves Director of Photography London/Berlin.
On 24 Mar 2018, at 11:16, Mark Kenfield <mark@...> wrote:
|
|
|
|
Re: Venice evaluation
Mark Kenfield
Hey Geoff, I've pulled the EXRs into Davinci to have a play around with them. But I haven't worked with EXRs before, and I'm struggling to convert them from Linear, back to a conventional Sony SLOG3 gamma that I can then work from. I've been trying different ACES IDTs, and the built-in Linear conversion LUTs in Davinci without success. I'm sure it's something obvious I'm missing (and I imagine there are plenty of others on here without any EXR experience), so I was wondering if you could give us a quick how-to guide on delinearizing linear in Davinci? (a semi-serious googling of the issue is yet to yield sweet relief).
On 22 March 2018 at 18:48, Geoff Boyle <geoff.cml@...> wrote:
|
|
|
|
Re: Venice evaluation
alister@...
There are some F55’s that have very slightly different calibration settings to most that can result in a slight green shift. These cameras are basically slightly off spec (Sony can recalibrate them). It may be that the F55 camera used for the evaluation was one of these.
|
|
|
|
Re: Sony VENICE camera - word on the street
Gavin Greenwalt
“What are the feelings on highlight rolloff? Especially in comparison to the current “titleholder” ARRI Alexa / Amira sensor?”
|
|
|
|
Re: Sony VENICE camera - word on the street
Jeremey Shelton
What are the feelings on skin tone and highlight rolloff? Especially in comparison to the current “titleholder” ARRI Alexa / Amira sensor?
-- - Jeremey
|
|
|