Please, Adam. There's a Philz Coffee up the street from Chater. No Starbucks that day. -- Art Adams DP San Francisco Bay Area www.artadamsdp.com

My understanding of this is that the Live HDR option adds a system gamma that so that the X300 presents S-Log3 as an image representative of what should be seen on a Rec709 TV from 0 to 100% of the

> I assume there were no illicit substances involved in the test that day ;) We were at Chater Camera that day, so it’s possible we went to Picante for lunch (http://www.picanteberkeley.com). If

I assume there were no illicit substances involved in the test that day ;) John Tarver, csc Director of Photography www.johntarver.com In TO

First of all, I want to be clear that I am not talking about artistic adjustments made to the image. I am talking about a baseline before grading, where the image on the screen appears perceptually

Thank you Adam. I think there may have been some miss-understanding in what I have been saying which was in response to Nicks comment that "scene contrast ratios and screen contrast ratios are not the

Adam, I remember that. It was almost creepy. It would make a great, but very short, Black Mirror episode. I remember looking from the monitor (Sony A170, I believe) to the chart and thinking, "I will

> because of gamma and the responses of displays the total range may be > the same but the way it is represented can be totally different. Can be, yes. And it often (usually) is different. But

The first line is correct. If you have a monitor that can show up to 10,000 nits (the brightness of a piece of paper in the Sun) so that you can match the brightness of daylight and you are also

I’m with Nick on this. Jim Houston Jim Houston Consultant, Starwatcher Digital, Pasadena, CA

But they don’t “look the same” The 709 standard was based on CRT TV’s with very limited brightness ranges and white at 100 NITs, so a bit of contrast was added to make up for the lack of

The first line is correct. If you have a monitor that can show up to 10,000 nits (the brightness of a piece of paper in the Sun) so that you can match the brightness of daylight and you are also

This is correct from an engineering standpoint. From an artistic standpoint... not so much. There's a difference between capturing images and creating visual stories. For the former, a chart is an

That's the key point, "look the same" not "be the same." It has long been accepted in traditional TV that a system gamma of about 1.2 was required to make an image on a TV appear perceptually the same

Geoff wrote: I really hope they aren’t different. What would be the point of my expensive DSC Charts? Sure, it can be different, but it doesn’t have to be, it all depends on the grade. If the

“here burn in their LUTs in this way” ____________________________________ Until log showed up say five years ago the only way - was to “burn” your lut into your work. You picked a gamma

I have to disagree with you on this Alister, because of gamma and the responses of displays the total range may be the same but the way it is represented can be totally different. Cheers Geoff

I just upgraded to the Varicam LT. It has the ability to record VLog to the primary memory card and a proxy file to the secondary memory card, while applying a built-in or user supplied LUT to the

I’m fully familiar with viewing environments etc and the examples above assume that the viewing environment is different to the scene and that the monitors contrast range is significantly less than

I occasionally burn in a LUT to a monitor/recorder (if I have time and have a post plan) so that there’s at least a reference image in proxies, but only if I’m happy with the camera log/raw