Web Analytics
   Date   

Sony Fs7 Raw to Black & White

Alexander Wysocki
 

I have a project coming up and we are planning on finishing it in Black and White.  I will most likely have to use the Sony FS7 for this with an Odyssey Raw recorder. 

The setting of the film is the 1940s so we are aiming for a Black and White look that will evoke that era.  I will be using a set of Zeiss Super Speed PL primes.

Could anyone suggest a LUT that would serve as a good starting point?  Every time I see a digital conversion to B&W I am bothered by the black level never getting completely dark.  I know there are a ton of LUT websites out there, but before I go downloading a whole bunch of them, I would really appreciate any suggestions or advice (or warnings) from this group.

thanks,

Alex Wysocki 
Director Of Photography / Camera Operator
Burbank, CA
www.ShadowRender.com



Re: New CML site with raw files

Geoff Boyle
 

Thanks, we need the funds 😂


Re: New CML site with raw files

Geoff Boyle
 

YoullY need to revisit as it now looks exactly like the main CML site and all thr links work back.
When the new tests are up it should be transparent, you will only be able to tell which site you're on by looking at the address bar.
A lot of the old tests will move across as well.
Much faster system.
If nothing goes wrong the main CML site will move to the new system as well in September and we'll have over a terabyte of SSD space and a much faster sytem all round.

Geoff


Re: New CML site with raw files

Ted Hayash
 

I’ll cop to visiting from a smart phone - I’m waiting for my desktop machine to reboot, and clicked the link to see what cameras were included and if it would be worth visiting from an environment where I could view the files. And to admire your handiwork. 

Cheers. 

Ted Hayash 
Cinematographer 
Los Angeles 

 Ted Hayash
Ted Hayash
Director of Photography 
www.tedhayash.com


On June 29, 2018 at 7:47 GMT, Geoff Boyle <geoff@...> wrote:

In anticipation of the 2018 Camera Evaluations I’ve setup a new website, it’s really a sub web of cinematography.net

 

Currently there are some test files there and if you’re interested in raw then you may want to take a look.

 

As far as suggestions or comments about this new facility…

 

If you are a gold supporter of CML I will listen and pay attention

If you are a silver supporter of CML I will listen

If you are a bronze supporter of CML I will hear you

 

Anyone else, well in this world you get what you pay for so you get…

 

https://www.cmltests.net/

 

Some of the files are still uploading.

 

When I finish shooting the 2018 cameras these files will be removed.

 

I’m having issues with some of the cameras, the files are enormous and it’s a huge amount of work to trim them. I’ll make sure that we shoot shorter clips with those cameras this time.

 

Cheers

 

Geoff Boyle NSC FBKS

Cinematographer

Netherlands

www.gboyle.nl

 



Re: New CML site with raw files

Fahnon
 

Thanks so much Geoff.  I'm personally grateful enough to have just become a supporter (have been for a long while but just put my money where my mouth is)...


On Fri, Jun 29, 2018 at 3:47 AM Geoff Boyle <geoff@...> wrote:

In anticipation of the 2018 Camera Evaluations I’ve setup a new website, it’s really a sub web of cinematography.net

 

Currently there are some test files there and if you’re interested in raw then you may want to take a look.

 

As far as suggestions or comments about this new facility…

 

If you are a gold supporter of CML I will listen and pay attention

If you are a silver supporter of CML I will listen

If you are a bronze supporter of CML I will hear you

 

Anyone else, well in this world you get what you pay for so you get…

 

https://www.cmltests.net/

 

Some of the files are still uploading.

 

When I finish shooting the 2018 cameras these files will be removed.

 

I’m having issues with some of the cameras, the files are enormous and it’s a huge amount of work to trim them. I’ll make sure that we shoot shorter clips with those cameras this time.

 

Cheers

 

Geoff Boyle NSC FBKS

Cinematographer

Netherlands

www.gboyle.nl

 



--
Fahnon Bennett
Filmmaker/Photographer
Brooklyn, New York
323.375.4332


Re: New CML site with raw files

Geoff Boyle
 

It’s now up to 20% of visitors are using iPhones.

 

I’d love to see the iPhone that can cope with 8GB raw camera files.

 

Cheers

 

Geoff Boyle NSC FBKS

Cinematographer

Netherlands

www.gboyle.nl

 

From: cml-raw-log-hdr@... <cml-raw-log-hdr@...> On Behalf Of Geoff Boyle
Sent: 29 June 2018 14:11
To: cml-raw-log-hdr@...
Subject: Re: [cml-raw-log-hdr] New CML site with raw files

 

I needed a good laugh and boy have I got it.

14% of the people visiting the new site so far have used a smartphone.

The average file size is 8GB...

Geoff


Re: New CML site with raw files

Geoff Boyle
 

Just let me know if there is anything wrong with it.

cheers
Geoff Boyle NSC
EU based cinematographer
+31 637155076
www.gboyle.co.uk

On Sat, 30 Jun 2018, 18:53 Colin Elves, <colin@...> wrote:
Thanks Geoff!

Is it weird that I’m more excited by these camera evaluations than the World Cup or Royal wedding?

Colin Elves
Director of Photography
Berlin


On 30 Jun 2018, at 13:16, Geoff Boyle <geoff@...> wrote:

Finally, its all working, i had to remove file size limitations.

It didn't want to work with files over 5Gb, there's now one that's 16GB 😂

Geoff


Re: New CML site with raw files

Colin Elves
 

Thanks Geoff!

Is it weird that I’m more excited by these camera evaluations than the World Cup or Royal wedding?

Colin Elves
Director of Photography
Berlin


On 30 Jun 2018, at 13:16, Geoff Boyle <geoff@...> wrote:

Finally, its all working, i had to remove file size limitations.

It didn't want to work with files over 5Gb, there's now one that's 16GB 😂

Geoff


Re: New CML site with raw files

Geoff Boyle
 

Finally, its all working, i had to remove file size limitations.

It didn't want to work with files over 5Gb, there's now one that's 16GB 😂

Geoff


Re: New CML site with raw files

Geoff Boyle
 

The links are all working now, an idiot hadn't re-linked them from the test server to the live one.
I've fired me.

Geoff


Re: New CML site with raw files

Geoff Boyle
 

I needed a good laugh and boy have I got it.

14% of the people visiting the new site so far have used a smartphone.

The average file size is 8GB...

Geoff


New CML site with raw files

Geoff Boyle
 

In anticipation of the 2018 Camera Evaluations I’ve setup a new website, it’s really a sub web of cinematography.net

 

Currently there are some test files there and if you’re interested in raw then you may want to take a look.

 

As far as suggestions or comments about this new facility…

 

If you are a gold supporter of CML I will listen and pay attention

If you are a silver supporter of CML I will listen

If you are a bronze supporter of CML I will hear you

 

Anyone else, well in this world you get what you pay for so you get…

 

https://www.cmltests.net/

 

Some of the files are still uploading.

 

When I finish shooting the 2018 cameras these files will be removed.

 

I’m having issues with some of the cameras, the files are enormous and it’s a huge amount of work to trim them. I’ll make sure that we shoot shorter clips with those cameras this time.

 

Cheers

 

Geoff Boyle NSC FBKS

Cinematographer

Netherlands

www.gboyle.nl

 


Re: Gordon Willis, was Further thoughts on the Camera Evaluations

Leonard Levy
 

On Jun 23, 2018, at 12:59 PM, Mitch Gross <mitchgrosscml@...> wrote:
A further note on Gordon Willis. Godfather, Part III was shot with a thick negative. The Technicolor IB process was no longer available to him like it was on the earlier films, so Willis exposed differently knowing that he couldn’t get the thick blacks he wanted from standard printing of thinner exposures. 

That’s interesting. My long ago memory of Godfather 3 was that as the film went on it darker and darker in Italy and started falling into the mud though I can’t remember whether it was noisy or just amorphous . That’s not a criticism though . I loved it and imagined Willis was going for a late Caravaggio look where things got darker and darker as if their world was coming apart.  It was a touchstone for me. Tell the truth though I haven’t seen it in a long time and don’t know whether that would come across on video at all or even if my memory was correct. Sometimes its just a bad print or projection :)

Leonard Levy, DP
San Rafael, CA



Re: Gordon Willis, was Further thoughts on the Camera Evaluations

Geoff Boyle
 

That’s the point isn’t it.

 

I feel a rant coming on, heading over to CineRant to vent 😊

 

I may cross post here.

 

Cheers

 

Geoff Boyle NSC FBKS

Cinematographer

Netherlands

www.gboyle.nl

 

From: cml-raw-log-hdr@... <cml-raw-log-hdr@...> On Behalf Of Mitch Gross

It’s good to know your workflow. 

 


Gordon Willis, was Further thoughts on the Camera Evaluations

Mitch Gross
 

A further note on Gordon Willis. Godfather, Part III was shot with a thick negative. The Technicolor IB process was no longer available to him like it was on the earlier films, so Willis exposed differently knowing that he couldn’t get the thick blacks he wanted from standard printing of thinner exposures. 

It’s good to know your workflow. 


Mitch Gross
Cinema Product Manager 
Panasonic Systems Solutions Company of North America
New York

On Jun 23, 2018, at 3:18 PM, Geoff Boyle <geoff.cml@...> wrote:

A quote from CH, it’s only roughly what he said my memory is …

 

“the secret to good photography is contrast and there are many ways to create that”

 

You mention films he shot that were apparently low levels of exposure, or were they?

 

The example Art gave of RT3 was in fact the exact opposite of what he wanted to say, with printer lights averaging 36 the DP was not exploring the limits of low level exposure but was in fact exposing foe a full fat negative and printing down, it’s in the numbers.

 

I know that GW did indeed underexpose but a lot of very dark scenes by other DP’s are like the example given of RT3.

 

CH also used very heavy exposure, Searching for Bobby Fisher, Butch & Sundance are two films where he was going for a VERY heavy neg.

 

It’s not just how its exposed, it’s what you do with it later.

 

It’s also the illusion of darkness created with contrast.

 

Now can we either start a new topic or get back on subject.

 

Cheers

 

Geoff Boyle NSC FBKS

Cinematographer

Netherlands

www.gboyle.nl

 

From: cml-raw-log-hdr@... <cml-raw-log-hdr@...> On Behalf Of Art Adams
Sent: 23 June 2018 18:14
To: Cml-Raw-Log-Hdr <cml-raw-log-hdr@...>
Subject: Re: [cml-raw-log-hdr] Further thoughts on the Camera Evaluations

 

Neither Gordon Willis nor Conrad Hall "underexposed" their images. They exposed them exactly the way they wanted them. Sometimes that meant working in the toe. There are several sequences in Jennifer 8 (Conrad Hall) shot in a school for the blind that take place at night and are lit almost entirely by flashlight, but if you pay attention you'll see that there are the subtlest hints of light illuminating the odd wall or hallway. There may be someone with a flashlight down at the end of the hall, but the facing wall of an adjoining hallway in the foreground will be lit to four or five stops under exposure to contrast with the actual darkness. You can barely see it, but it's there, and it's intentional. It doesn't look this way on video, but on film... wow.

 

Jennifer 8 is an amazing film if you like darkness and want to see a master DP living on the edge of exposure.

 

Gordon Willis spoke about exposing at the limits of the film stock because he wanted to make sure it was printed exactly the way he wanted it. He also said he went too far a few times.

 

In an interview with Jack Green on Clint Eastwood's Unforgiven, he said that underexposure in the style of Conrad Hall scared the hell out of him, so he rated his stock a stop or two slower and printed down for the dark scenes.

 

My first "big" feature (well, not incredibly low budget) was the critically acclaimed "Texas Chainsaw Massacre III" (19% on Rotten Tomatoes, from back when RT ratings actually meant something). It was shot by Jim Carter, and I wish I'd had more time to pay attention to what he was doing because it's an incredibly dark yet beautiful movie. I can't suggest that anyone ever watch the film due to the nature of the content, but Jim played a lot of it right on the edge. He told he did this for the same reason the others did: the director wanted a dark movie, so he made sure it couldn't be printed up.

 

 

From memory: 5296 rated at EI 400, T2, printing lights of 39-43-26. (It's funny how you remember printer lights 25+ years later after writing them 100+ times on camera reports.) Key lights were almost always at -1.5 stops (incident).

 

So, are those bottom couple of stops usable? Sure. Under the right conditions, absolutely. There may not be much down there, but as long as there's just enough contrast to discern between the tonal steps, and the viewing conditions are right (OLED, HDR, high quality projection, etc.) someone who knows what they are doing can make them work. You're not going to be able to make them brighter without introducing tons of noise, but you don't have to use them that way.

 

Not everyone will want to use them. Not everyone will be able to use them. But it seems wrong to ignore them as "unusable."

 

--

Art Adams

Director of Photography

San Francisco Bay Area

 


Re: Further thoughts on the Camera Evaluations

Geoff Boyle
 

A quote from CH, it’s only roughly what he said my memory is …

 

“the secret to good photography is contrast and there are many ways to create that”

 

You mention films he shot that were apparently low levels of exposure, or were they?

 

The example Art gave of RT3 was in fact the exact opposite of what he wanted to say, with printer lights averaging 36 the DP was not exploring the limits of low level exposure but was in fact exposing foe a full fat negative and printing down, it’s in the numbers.

 

I know that GW did indeed underexpose but a lot of very dark scenes by other DP’s are like the example given of RT3.

 

CH also used very heavy exposure, Searching for Bobby Fisher, Butch & Sundance are two films where he was going for a VERY heavy neg.

 

It’s not just how its exposed, it’s what you do with it later.

 

It’s also the illusion of darkness created with contrast.

 

Now can we either start a new topic or get back on subject.

 

Cheers

 

Geoff Boyle NSC FBKS

Cinematographer

Netherlands

www.gboyle.nl

 

From: cml-raw-log-hdr@... <cml-raw-log-hdr@...> On Behalf Of Art Adams
Sent: 23 June 2018 18:14
To: Cml-Raw-Log-Hdr <cml-raw-log-hdr@...>
Subject: Re: [cml-raw-log-hdr] Further thoughts on the Camera Evaluations

 

Neither Gordon Willis nor Conrad Hall "underexposed" their images. They exposed them exactly the way they wanted them. Sometimes that meant working in the toe. There are several sequences in Jennifer 8 (Conrad Hall) shot in a school for the blind that take place at night and are lit almost entirely by flashlight, but if you pay attention you'll see that there are the subtlest hints of light illuminating the odd wall or hallway. There may be someone with a flashlight down at the end of the hall, but the facing wall of an adjoining hallway in the foreground will be lit to four or five stops under exposure to contrast with the actual darkness. You can barely see it, but it's there, and it's intentional. It doesn't look this way on video, but on film... wow.

 

Jennifer 8 is an amazing film if you like darkness and want to see a master DP living on the edge of exposure.

 

Gordon Willis spoke about exposing at the limits of the film stock because he wanted to make sure it was printed exactly the way he wanted it. He also said he went too far a few times.

 

In an interview with Jack Green on Clint Eastwood's Unforgiven, he said that underexposure in the style of Conrad Hall scared the hell out of him, so he rated his stock a stop or two slower and printed down for the dark scenes.

 

My first "big" feature (well, not incredibly low budget) was the critically acclaimed "Texas Chainsaw Massacre III" (19% on Rotten Tomatoes, from back when RT ratings actually meant something). It was shot by Jim Carter, and I wish I'd had more time to pay attention to what he was doing because it's an incredibly dark yet beautiful movie. I can't suggest that anyone ever watch the film due to the nature of the content, but Jim played a lot of it right on the edge. He told he did this for the same reason the others did: the director wanted a dark movie, so he made sure it couldn't be printed up.

 

 

From memory: 5296 rated at EI 400, T2, printing lights of 39-43-26. (It's funny how you remember printer lights 25+ years later after writing them 100+ times on camera reports.) Key lights were almost always at -1.5 stops (incident).

 

So, are those bottom couple of stops usable? Sure. Under the right conditions, absolutely. There may not be much down there, but as long as there's just enough contrast to discern between the tonal steps, and the viewing conditions are right (OLED, HDR, high quality projection, etc.) someone who knows what they are doing can make them work. You're not going to be able to make them brighter without introducing tons of noise, but you don't have to use them that way.

 

Not everyone will want to use them. Not everyone will be able to use them. But it seems wrong to ignore them as "unusable."

 

--

Art Adams

Director of Photography

San Francisco Bay Area

 


Re: Further thoughts on the Camera Evaluations

Art Adams <art.cml.only@...>
 

It's been pointed out to me that I contradicted myself, saying that Hall and Willis didn't underexpose their images, but that Jack Green didn't want to underexpose the way Hall did. Let me rephrase: Green didn't want to expose at the lower limit of film stocks the same way Hall did.

--
Art Adams
Director of Photography
San Francisco Bay Area


Re: Further thoughts on the Camera Evaluations

Art Adams <art.cml.only@...>
 

M: Argument is an intellectual process. Contradiction is just the automatic gainsaying of anything the other person says.

O: It is not.

--
Art Adams
Director of Photography
San Francisco Bay Area


Re: Further thoughts on the Camera Evaluations

Art Adams <art.cml.only@...>
 

Neither Gordon Willis nor Conrad Hall "underexposed" their images. They exposed them exactly the way they wanted them. Sometimes that meant working in the toe. There are several sequences in Jennifer 8 (Conrad Hall) shot in a school for the blind that take place at night and are lit almost entirely by flashlight, but if you pay attention you'll see that there are the subtlest hints of light illuminating the odd wall or hallway. There may be someone with a flashlight down at the end of the hall, but the facing wall of an adjoining hallway in the foreground will be lit to four or five stops under exposure to contrast with the actual darkness. You can barely see it, but it's there, and it's intentional. It doesn't look this way on video, but on film... wow.

Jennifer 8 is an amazing film if you like darkness and want to see a master DP living on the edge of exposure.

Gordon Willis spoke about exposing at the limits of the film stock because he wanted to make sure it was printed exactly the way he wanted it. He also said he went too far a few times.

In an interview with Jack Green on Clint Eastwood's Unforgiven, he said that underexposure in the style of Conrad Hall scared the hell out of him, so he rated his stock a stop or two slower and printed down for the dark scenes.

My first "big" feature (well, not incredibly low budget) was the critically acclaimed "Texas Chainsaw Massacre III" (19% on Rotten Tomatoes, from back when RT ratings actually meant something). It was shot by Jim Carter, and I wish I'd had more time to pay attention to what he was doing because it's an incredibly dark yet beautiful movie. I can't suggest that anyone ever watch the film due to the nature of the content, but Jim played a lot of it right on the edge. He told he did this for the same reason the others did: the director wanted a dark movie, so he made sure it couldn't be printed up.


From memory: 5296 rated at EI 400, T2, printing lights of 39-43-26. (It's funny how you remember printer lights 25+ years later after writing them 100+ times on camera reports.) Key lights were almost always at -1.5 stops (incident).

So, are those bottom couple of stops usable? Sure. Under the right conditions, absolutely. There may not be much down there, but as long as there's just enough contrast to discern between the tonal steps, and the viewing conditions are right (OLED, HDR, high quality projection, etc.) someone who knows what they are doing can make them work. You're not going to be able to make them brighter without introducing tons of noise, but you don't have to use them that way.

Not everyone will want to use them. Not everyone will be able to use them. But it seems wrong to ignore them as "unusable."

--
Art Adams
Director of Photography
San Francisco Bay Area


Re: Further thoughts on the Camera Evaluations

Michael Most
 

On Jun 22, 2018, at 11:03 PM, Adam Wilt <adam@...> wrote:


I’m sorry, I thought the door was labeled “Abuse”. I’m in the wrong room!,

No, this is getting hit on the head lessons. Abuse is done the hall.

MM

1181 - 1200 of 1984