Web Analytics
   Date   

Re: Curves and Bit Depth - was Sigma fp

Adrian Jebef
 

Oh well. I tried.

-AJ








On Dec 27, 2020, at 7:51 PM, Ben Allan ACS <benallan@...> wrote:

The other thing about MTF is that there’s no inherent loss of MTF in the image chain and with digital grading we have so much more control of the ways that contrast behaves in different parts of the image, that it is possible to change the contrast/resolution perception of the audience quite dramatically in ways that are fairly independent of the camera, lenses etc. While MTF still matters to some extent, it’s not nearly the massive issue it was with the photochemical process where you would lose MTF at every stage from the lens to the print.

Also, as John alludes to, the scale of a big production can actually make issues like data rate more of a problem than they are on a small production. Just like I can easily do 4K on my laptop but for a VFX driven blockbuster - 3.4K is a big enough stretch!

_______________________________
Ben Allan ACS CSI

Producer | Cinematographer | Colorist
ACS National Secretary
Host of "The T-Stop Inn” Podcast

On 28 Dec 2020, at 1:26 pm, Jeff Kreines <jeff@...> wrote:

John Brawley makes a lot of sense. His section re MTFs was music to my ears. My old mentor Ricky Leacock, when he found out what the early 16mm Mk I Zeiss Superspeeds cost, said “Baltars are good enough.” (He used to shoot with a BNC.)


Re: Curves and Bit Depth - was Sigma fp

Ben Allan ACS
 

The other thing about MTF is that there’s no inherent loss of MTF in the image chain and with digital grading we have so much more control of the ways that contrast behaves in different parts of the image, that it is possible to change the contrast/resolution perception of the audience quite dramatically in ways that are fairly independent of the camera, lenses etc. While MTF still matters to some extent, it’s not nearly the massive issue it was with the photochemical process where you would lose MTF at every stage from the lens to the print.

Also, as John alludes to, the scale of a big production can actually make issues like data rate more of a problem than they are on a small production. Just like I can easily do 4K on my laptop but for a VFX driven blockbuster - 3.4K is a big enough stretch!

_______________________________
Ben Allan ACS CSI

Producer | Cinematographer | Colorist
ACS National Secretary
Host of "The T-Stop Inn” Podcast

On 28 Dec 2020, at 1:26 pm, Jeff Kreines <jeff@...> wrote:

John Brawley makes a lot of sense. His section re MTFs was music to my ears. My old mentor Ricky Leacock, when he found out what the early 16mm Mk I Zeiss Superspeeds cost, said “Baltars are good enough.” (He used to shoot with a BNC.)


Re: Curves and Bit Depth - was Sigma fp

John Brawley
 




On Dec 27, 2020, at 6:18 PM, Adrian Jebef via cml.news <adrianjebef=yahoo.com@...> wrote:
Yo all I’m gonna say is it’s 2021 so if any of youz still think shooting uncompressed or raw or best quality whatever  is “hard” or “not worth the effort” or “Post says...” y’all need to stop listening to the Crybabies out there 


Thanks for DITsplaining that to me man, but there’s a bunch of studio execs, post production execs and producers that are in front of you my friend that get to arbitrate these things. 

I’m all for shaking the tree, but money talks.  

JB

John Brawley ACS
Cinematographer
Currently shooting compressed RAW in Los Angeles




Re: Curves and Bit Depth - was Sigma fp

Jeff Kreines
 

John Brawley makes a lot of sense. His section re MTFs was music to my ears. My old mentor Ricky Leacock, when he found out what the early 16mm Mk I Zeiss Superspeeds cost, said “Baltars are good enough.”  (He used to shoot with a BNC.)

My partner Jo DeMott, who is much smarter than I am, hated the 9.5 Zeiss that I was trying on my new 1980 Aaton.  Once I saw dailies, I concurred.  Too sharp and the colors were weirdly over saturated.  No character.  So I adapted a 10mm Switar to my LTR.  Looked silly on the camera but great on the screen.  But I digress. 

Cinema DNG is another format from hell.  We had one scanner user insist on uncompressed storage, so we added Cinema DNG.  

Image sequences (like DXF) made sense for 1990s effects work, where a “shot” might be 800 frames long and worked on by several people. 

But for for capture, editing, and archival work, they are dumb.  They are slow and require fast storage to play back in real time. 

As I recall, Resolve couldn’t handle the MXF-wrapped C-DNG, so 1440 files for a 24fps minute were needed, which adds overhead to play back. 

Resolve is great with Cineform RAW... ;-)

Jeff “one-note” Kreines
Kinetta
jeff@...
kinetta.com

Sent from iPhone. 

On Dec 27, 2020, at 7:27 PM, John Brawley <john@...> wrote:


On Dec 27, 2020, at 2:59 PM, Pawel Achtel ACS <pawel.achtel@...> wrote:

Ø  [Mitch Gross] Uncompressed RAW is the best quality — so what? It is a more burdensome workflow because it does not deliver an immediate result in the form most clients want and it requires more memory which means more time in transfers.

You are confusing two things: Log curve (which saves very little space) and compression (which requires additional compression in camera and decompression in post).

In my many years of experience with DNG as a DP, simply because it is such an open format, it’s also the most likely to get screwed up and mangled in the post pipeline.  Every system opens it a different way despite the metadata and loaded tables.  PS, Google, apple finder, chrome, Resolve.  You open a single frame in any of those platforms and they all look totally different.  No one can work that way for a "lay” hand off.  It requires more oversight from the DP, which these days is typically less possible.

With increasing camera resolution the DNG file sizes also shoot up commensurately.  Even though hard drive space costs are lowering, the rate of file size increase with 4K+ files in DNG negates those cost savings in my view.   

Tell me the data rate for an 8K uncompressed DNG recording in-camera and then let’s run the numbers on what that is like for post compared to REDCODE @ 8K.  What kind of media can even do 8K uncompressed DNG ?  

Uncompressed is just as unwieldily for even competent post facilities.   My last two shows are very large budget for TV (10 million + per ep).  

On one everyone LOVED the Alexa 65 (which only shoots Arri RAW) in my testing, in combination with DNA primes.  It was the chosen camera package until post found out about it.

The Arri RAW data offload went from a single person on a 12 hour shift to three people across 17 hours to get it turned around each day even with HDE. Not only that, the delay for any VFX pulls went up astronomically. They also hit us for a lot of extra hard drive space charge.  

The main reason we didn’t go Alexa 65 was because POST said they couldn’t offload, process and turn those size Arri RAW files around fast enough.  And that meant it ALSO cost more.   Remembering that many shows do post in another country and “the internet” is how files are moved around, you are truly DREAMING if you think DNG is genuinely just as manageable as compressed RAW formats.  Sure at a local hardware level maybe, but not once you have multiple instances and you need to move those files around...

While the computational power to process a DNG is less, the bandwidth required is a heck of a lot more onerous on balance.  No not for an individual system, but when you have to move all these files around to multiple places, bandwidth is a problem.  Computing horse power isn’t so much of a problem to overcome.  No one wants to wait for DNG’s to be moved over the internet.  And that’s how post is done.

So instead we went to Arriraw from a regular SXT, (GASP less than 4K for a major streamer) because the streamer AND post didn’t want the “overhead" of 4K+ uncompressed.  And this was a 10 million per ep show.

Save for a giant budget film maybe, or special application where less compression actually makes a difference, no one is going to willingly pay for uncompressed DNG.  That’s my actual real world experience in the last two years of bigger budget TV,



BRAW is not widely supported on anything but Resolve and even Resolve requires expensive GPU. RED RAW requires decent GPU too. 


Pretty sure you’re quite wrong here. BRAW is actually widely supported.

Resolve obviously, but also

Adobe Premiere
Avid Media Composer
Silverstack (Used by many for dailies ingest / transcode)
On-Set Dailies (Also used for dailies processing / transcode)
Shot Put Pro (used for ingest)
Scratch
Baselight
Lightworks
Edius
PrimeTranscoder
Kyno
Syntheyes (match moving post software)

Basically the only thing BRAW isn't currently supported in is FCP. 


Ø  [Geoff Boyle] Of course we need objective measurements but ultimately we work in a world where taste is more important than fact.

Yes, but if we don’t change it no one else will. It amazes me how many DOPs do not know how to produce or read MTF graph or measure dynamic range or measure colour accuracy or gamut of a camera. As part of the industry we need to stick to the fact and objectivity. It is important. 
 

Pawel, I think you’re projecting (and judging) what “creative” people want.  How would you know ?  I personally don’t think MTF’s matter much when everyone is detuning lenses these days.  Resolution isn’t the only property of a lens and in my view, for most cinematographers and creative users of lenses, it’s way down the list of qualities that are desired.

Just like the argument about “accurate” colour and “nice” colour.  

While MTFs are useful to some, they are totally irrelevant to others.  A metric that’s important in the work that you do, isn’t always what’s important to another image maker and frankly I think that’s why most don’t care much for MTFs.  What does it “tell” you how it looks on a human face or how the lens performs with lots of backlight.  

Isn’t the MTF just one of many things that “could” matter to the individual creative choice of an image maker ?


John Brawley ACS
Cinematographer
Los Angeles


Re: Curves and Bit Depth - was Sigma fp

Adrian Jebef
 

Yo all I’m gonna say is it’s 2021 so if any of youz still think shooting uncompressed or raw or best quality whatever  is “hard” or “not worth the effort” or “Post says...” y’all need to stop listening to the Crybabies out there and just shoot full rez, full quality every time. Unless of course y’all shooting weddings and reality tv. Truth is the kid down the street has a faster workflow with his laptop than any big box Post House these days. No need to subsidize their old tech by being afraid of using the new tech.

When in doubt ask your DIT to run the Post numbers if you’re concerned about Budget and camera format.  Usually they’re the smartest tool in the shed.  Plus it’s always nice to get a third opinion before someone makes you do something ya don’t need to do.

Adrian Jebef 
DIT










On Dec 27, 2020, at 5:27 PM, John Brawley <john@...> wrote:


On Dec 27, 2020, at 2:59 PM, Pawel Achtel ACS <pawel.achtel@...> wrote:

Ø  [Mitch Gross] Uncompressed RAW is the best quality — so what? It is a more burdensome workflow because it does not deliver an immediate result in the form most clients want and it requires more memory which means more time in transfers.

You are confusing two things: Log curve (which saves very little space) and compression (which requires additional compression in camera and decompression in post).

In my many years of experience with DNG as a DP, simply because it is such an open format, it’s also the most likely to get screwed up and mangled in the post pipeline.  Every system opens it a different way despite the metadata and loaded tables.  PS, Google, apple finder, chrome, Resolve.  You open a single frame in any of those platforms and they all look totally different.  No one can work that way for a "lay” hand off.  It requires more oversight from the DP, which these days is typically less possible.

With increasing camera resolution the DNG file sizes also shoot up commensurately.  Even though hard drive space costs are lowering, the rate of file size increase with 4K+ files in DNG negates those cost savings in my view.   

Tell me the data rate for an 8K uncompressed DNG recording in-camera and then let’s run the numbers on what that is like for post compared to REDCODE @ 8K.  What kind of media can even do 8K uncompressed DNG ?  

Uncompressed is just as unwieldily for even competent post facilities.   My last two shows are very large budget for TV (10 million + per ep).  

On one everyone LOVED the Alexa 65 (which only shoots Arri RAW) in my testing, in combination with DNA primes.  It was the chosen camera package until post found out about it.

The Arri RAW data offload went from a single person on a 12 hour shift to three people across 17 hours to get it turned around each day even with HDE. Not only that, the delay for any VFX pulls went up astronomically. They also hit us for a lot of extra hard drive space charge.  

The main reason we didn’t go Alexa 65 was because POST said they couldn’t offload, process and turn those size Arri RAW files around fast enough.  And that meant it ALSO cost more.   Remembering that many shows do post in another country and “the internet” is how files are moved around, you are truly DREAMING if you think DNG is genuinely just as manageable as compressed RAW formats.  Sure at a local hardware level maybe, but not once you have multiple instances and you need to move those files around...

While the computational power to process a DNG is less, the bandwidth required is a heck of a lot more onerous on balance.  No not for an individual system, but when you have to move all these files around to multiple places, bandwidth is a problem.  Computing horse power isn’t so much of a problem to overcome.  No one wants to wait for DNG’s to be moved over the internet.  And that’s how post is done.

So instead we went to Arriraw from a regular SXT, (GASP less than 4K for a major streamer) because the streamer AND post didn’t want the “overhead" of 4K+ uncompressed.  And this was a 10 million per ep show.

Save for a giant budget film maybe, or special application where less compression actually makes a difference, no one is going to willingly pay for uncompressed DNG.  That’s my actual real world experience in the last two years of bigger budget TV,



BRAW is not widely supported on anything but Resolve and even Resolve requires expensive GPU. RED RAW requires decent GPU too. 


Pretty sure you’re quite wrong here. BRAW is actually widely supported.

Resolve obviously, but also

Adobe Premiere
Avid Media Composer
Silverstack (Used by many for dailies ingest / transcode)
On-Set Dailies (Also used for dailies processing / transcode)
Shot Put Pro (used for ingest)
Scratch
Baselight
Lightworks
Edius
PrimeTranscoder
Kyno
Syntheyes (match moving post software)

Basically the only thing BRAW isn't currently supported in is FCP. 


Ø  [Geoff Boyle] Of course we need objective measurements but ultimately we work in a world where taste is more important than fact.

Yes, but if we don’t change it no one else will. It amazes me how many DOPs do not know how to produce or read MTF graph or measure dynamic range or measure colour accuracy or gamut of a camera. As part of the industry we need to stick to the fact and objectivity. It is important. 
 

Pawel, I think you’re projecting (and judging) what “creative” people want.  How would you know ?  I personally don’t think MTF’s matter much when everyone is detuning lenses these days.  Resolution isn’t the only property of a lens and in my view, for most cinematographers and creative users of lenses, it’s way down the list of qualities that are desired.

Just like the argument about “accurate” colour and “nice” colour.  

While MTFs are useful to some, they are totally irrelevant to others.  A metric that’s important in the work that you do, isn’t always what’s important to another image maker and frankly I think that’s why most don’t care much for MTFs.  What does it “tell” you how it looks on a human face or how the lens performs with lots of backlight.  

Isn’t the MTF just one of many things that “could” matter to the individual creative choice of an image maker ?


John Brawley ACS
Cinematographer
Los Angeles


Re: Curves and Bit Depth - was Sigma fp

John Brawley
 


On Dec 27, 2020, at 2:59 PM, Pawel Achtel ACS <pawel.achtel@...> wrote:

Ø  [Mitch Gross] Uncompressed RAW is the best quality — so what? It is a more burdensome workflow because it does not deliver an immediate result in the form most clients want and it requires more memory which means more time in transfers.

You are confusing two things: Log curve (which saves very little space) and compression (which requires additional compression in camera and decompression in post).

In my many years of experience with DNG as a DP, simply because it is such an open format, it’s also the most likely to get screwed up and mangled in the post pipeline.  Every system opens it a different way despite the metadata and loaded tables.  PS, Google, apple finder, chrome, Resolve.  You open a single frame in any of those platforms and they all look totally different.  No one can work that way for a "lay” hand off.  It requires more oversight from the DP, which these days is typically less possible.

With increasing camera resolution the DNG file sizes also shoot up commensurately.  Even though hard drive space costs are lowering, the rate of file size increase with 4K+ files in DNG negates those cost savings in my view.   

Tell me the data rate for an 8K uncompressed DNG recording in-camera and then let’s run the numbers on what that is like for post compared to REDCODE @ 8K.  What kind of media can even do 8K uncompressed DNG ?  

Uncompressed is just as unwieldily for even competent post facilities.   My last two shows are very large budget for TV (10 million + per ep).  

On one everyone LOVED the Alexa 65 (which only shoots Arri RAW) in my testing, in combination with DNA primes.  It was the chosen camera package until post found out about it.

The Arri RAW data offload went from a single person on a 12 hour shift to three people across 17 hours to get it turned around each day even with HDE. Not only that, the delay for any VFX pulls went up astronomically. They also hit us for a lot of extra hard drive space charge.  

The main reason we didn’t go Alexa 65 was because POST said they couldn’t offload, process and turn those size Arri RAW files around fast enough.  And that meant it ALSO cost more.   Remembering that many shows do post in another country and “the internet” is how files are moved around, you are truly DREAMING if you think DNG is genuinely just as manageable as compressed RAW formats.  Sure at a local hardware level maybe, but not once you have multiple instances and you need to move those files around...

While the computational power to process a DNG is less, the bandwidth required is a heck of a lot more onerous on balance.  No not for an individual system, but when you have to move all these files around to multiple places, bandwidth is a problem.  Computing horse power isn’t so much of a problem to overcome.  No one wants to wait for DNG’s to be moved over the internet.  And that’s how post is done.

So instead we went to Arriraw from a regular SXT, (GASP less than 4K for a major streamer) because the streamer AND post didn’t want the “overhead" of 4K+ uncompressed.  And this was a 10 million per ep show.

Save for a giant budget film maybe, or special application where less compression actually makes a difference, no one is going to willingly pay for uncompressed DNG.  That’s my actual real world experience in the last two years of bigger budget TV,



BRAW is not widely supported on anything but Resolve and even Resolve requires expensive GPU. RED RAW requires decent GPU too. 


Pretty sure you’re quite wrong here. BRAW is actually widely supported.

Resolve obviously, but also

Adobe Premiere
Avid Media Composer
Silverstack (Used by many for dailies ingest / transcode)
On-Set Dailies (Also used for dailies processing / transcode)
Shot Put Pro (used for ingest)
Scratch
Baselight
Lightworks
Edius
PrimeTranscoder
Kyno
Syntheyes (match moving post software)

Basically the only thing BRAW isn't currently supported in is FCP. 


Ø  [Geoff Boyle] Of course we need objective measurements but ultimately we work in a world where taste is more important than fact.

Yes, but if we don’t change it no one else will. It amazes me how many DOPs do not know how to produce or read MTF graph or measure dynamic range or measure colour accuracy or gamut of a camera. As part of the industry we need to stick to the fact and objectivity. It is important. 
 

Pawel, I think you’re projecting (and judging) what “creative” people want.  How would you know ?  I personally don’t think MTF’s matter much when everyone is detuning lenses these days.  Resolution isn’t the only property of a lens and in my view, for most cinematographers and creative users of lenses, it’s way down the list of qualities that are desired.

Just like the argument about “accurate” colour and “nice” colour.  

While MTFs are useful to some, they are totally irrelevant to others.  A metric that’s important in the work that you do, isn’t always what’s important to another image maker and frankly I think that’s why most don’t care much for MTFs.  What does it “tell” you how it looks on a human face or how the lens performs with lots of backlight.  

Isn’t the MTF just one of many things that “could” matter to the individual creative choice of an image maker ?


John Brawley ACS
Cinematographer
Los Angeles


Re: Curves and Bit Depth - was Sigma fp

Pawel Achtel, ACS
 

Ø  [Mitch Gross] Uncompressed RAW is the best quality — so what? It is a more burdensome workflow because it does not deliver an immediate result in the form most clients want and it requires more memory which means more time in transfers.

You are confusing two things: Log curve (which saves very little space) and compression (which requires additional compression in camera and decompression in post).

 

Log, or let’s call it in general: input curve, can easily travel as metadata or be applied in edit/viewing environment. There is negligible overhead of doing so. It doesn’t need to be “backed-in”. The size benefit of log raw vs. linear raw is relatively minor.

 

Compressed raw requires more powerful hardware (GPU), not less. In particular on a notebook. But, Sigma fp offers both compressed formats and uncompressed DNG. You can chose. Compatibility wise: uncompressed Cinema DNG can be readily used in any NLE and workflow tools and it is more compatible than any compressed raw. For example, BRAW is not widely supported on anything but Resolve and even Resolve requires expensive GPU. RED RAW requires decent GPU too.

Ø  [Geoff Boyle] Of course we need objective measurements but ultimately we work in a world where taste is more important than fact.

Yes, but if we don’t change it no one else will. It amazes me how many DOPs do not know how to produce or read MTF graph or measure dynamic range or measure colour accuracy or gamut of a camera. As part of the industry we need to stick to the fact and objectivity. It is important.

 

Kind Regards,

 

Pawel Achtel ACS B.Eng.(Hons) M.Sc.

“Sharp to the Edge”

 

ACHTEL PTY LIMITED, ABN 52 134 895 417

Website: www.achtel.com

Mobile: 040 747 2747 (overseas: +61 4 0747 2747)

Mail: PO BOX 557, Rockdale, NSW 2216, Australia

Address: RA 913 Coles Bay Rd., Coles Bay, TAS 7215, Australia

Location: S 42° 0'14.40"S, E 148°14'47.13"

Email: Pawel.Achtel@...

Facebook: facebook.com/PawelAchtel

Twitter: twitter.com/PawelAchtel

Skype: Pawel.Achtel

_._,_._,_


Re: Curves and Bit Depth - was Sigma fp

 

This is especially true in the corporate world, a lot of whom now have in house post prod departments.  

There are lots of factors at work there such as availability of storage (when getting IT to sign off on a big server is huge ask) to how to reduce billable hours to one person or a specific machine (seriously one of my clients has a couple of top spec workstations that they internally Bill this way), let alone the person doing the edit has five things on the go and another step is going to impact on that.

So often now I work on the concept of acceptable losses!

Michael

Michael J Sanders

London based Cinematographer/DP 
Mobile: +44 (0) 7976 269818   
Web: www.mjsanders.co.uk


On 27 Dec 2020, at 15:35, Mitch Gross <mitchgrosscml@...> wrote:

They don’t want to deal with it. It is something different and requires different workflow.


Re: Curves and Bit Depth - was Sigma fp

Mitch Gross
 

On Dec 27, 2020, at 6:24 AM, Pawel Achtel ACS <pawel.achtel@...> wrote:

Mitch Gross] DPs who don’t have to care about workflow want uncompressed RAW.

Huh? Uncompressed RAW gives you more, not less, control and image quality during post workflow.




Yes, but you are misunderstanding what I mean by “workflow.” Clients don’t want uncompressed RAW. They don’t want to deal with it. It is something different and requires different workflow. When the day’s shooting is done they need three (often more) copies of the footage, including one that they can view on their laptop or is quickly uploaded to a cloud service. They also need a copy of the footage available in a video format with a standard LUT applied for viewing in a Rec709 environment. The files need to load into an Avid, or Premiere, or whatever. And they do not want to wait a day or even a few hours to get the footage like this — they want it when they leave set. Frankly it better be uploading during the course of the day. 

I know that uncompressed RAW is technically the best, purest form to get the signal from the camera to post. I’m the guy who helped introduce the production world to the Phantom cameras, which were the first uncompressed RAW systems generally available to most people (not a lot of Dalsa shooters out there). Uncompressed RAW is the best quality — so what? It is a more burdensome workflow because it does not deliver an immediate result in the form most clients want and it requires more memory which means more time in transfers. I will again state that a good codec such as ProRes with a standardized Log curve applied (C-Log/Log-C/V-Log/etc. - choose your camera’s flavor) is more than enough for 99% of professional production needs and it is easier for clients to use because it is what they expect. Is it technically as good? No. Does that matter? No. 



Mitch Gross
New York


Re: Curves and Bit Depth - was Sigma fp

Noel Sterrett
 


On 12/26/20 10:12 PM, Daniel Rozsnyó wrote:
The whole issue with uncompressed workflow (or the thing which killed it at classic vendors) was the absurd price of branded media ...
I paid $2,120 for 512 GB Sony AXS media ~ $4/GB. It was a ridiculous price even then. USB-c SSD media for the Sigma fp is $220 for 2,000 GB ~ $0.11/GB.

On 12/26/20 10:43 PM, Rakesh Malik wrote:
Again, there is zero value in uncompressed raw in this day and age.
Compression does not improve images. It is used to save money. In this day and age, storage has become so small, fast and cheap, that it is a viable option. And there is no doubt that when it comes to image quality, uncompressed is best.

On 12/27/20 2:47 AM, Pawel Achtel ACS wrote:
The beauty of uncompressed RAW is in that it doesn’t require much GPU processing in-camera.
Which is why the Sigma fp can be so small.



Re: Curves and Bit Depth - was Sigma fp

Geoff Boyle
 

I was referring to the standard Alexa not the LF.
Of course we need objective measurements but ultimately we work in a world where taste is more important than fact.
Another story I've told many times is of being dragged by engineers to look at an Olympus 4k video camera, this was in the days when HD was new, 4k was unheard of.
Of course the camera was 4 k but 4k of no dynamic range and dreadful colour response. Unuseable for making movies but the 4k impressed the hell out of the engineers.

Cheers
Geoff Boyle NSC FBKS
EU based cinematographer


Re: Curves and Bit Depth - was Sigma fp

Paul Curtis
 

I've had one of these since it first came out and it is an amazing camera for it's size and cost. I've spent a lot of time ripping apart the RAW and working out where it's limitation are (for me), this is from memory:

- The sensor appears to be one of the Sony ones and like most sensors in this range, movie capture is limited to 12 bit off the sensor. You will never get more than that. Stills are 14 bit. Log is not needed, RAW is better in every way so long as you've got the workflow and pipeline to support it, you'd never use this cam as a wedding videographer. As a B or C cam it's great.

- Remember that in full frame mode it is downsampling 6K to UHD and with that comes softness. There is no OLPF as such and they rely on that downsampling to hide moire. Personally it's not something that has raised it's head for me but i have seen it. If you do DC mode (crop mode) then you get a UHD crop from the centre of the sensor and that is 1:1 pixel, it's noticeably sharper (and more susceptible)

- Like all of these cameras the workflow is paramount - highlight recovery is essential to extending highlight range and soft rolloffs, also careful transforms of colour are needed to roll off highlight colour too. I've been able to match this to Red footage under IPP2 remarkably well.

- But the range really is around 11/12 stops and for me that is the bigger issue because it means as a B cam side by side with a Red for example, that i cannot use the same lighting as sigma can't hold the highlights outside a window for example, where as Red can. But if you want to tape this camera to the ceiling or put it on some weird rig - it's brilliant.

- Rolling shutter is there and it's very average - better than Sony a7sII but nowhere near the sIII. Longer lenses can really show up the issues too and because it is so light that handholding means micro jitters and this can show up easily.

- As a form factor as a hand held camera the lack of EVF is a pain. The OVF is lovely and offers a great 3 points of contact with the eye but it's position is fixed and it adds so much size to what is a tiny package.

- The 8 bit RAW has a custom log curve in it, well an S curve that keeps the full range in just 8 bits - it's amazing quality. The 12 bit holds the shadows better though. In all cases extreme shadows go green. There's no point in having log as 12 bit RAW gets you all you're going to get off the sensor and it's uncompressed so pulling all the details out works well.

- You can whack a tentacle sync into the audio for TC. Audio is ok overall but i assume we don't care about that.

- The native colourspace is neither 709 or P3, it's whatever is native to the camera. There seems to be a slight advantage to working in a P3 project in Resolve but not really enough to make a huge change. I like the colour of it, it seems natural and malleable.

Having said this i'm hoping a Komodo will fit the bill for me, i have one on the way and will see, but that solves the rolling shutter and the range issue... But i will keep the fp as it's also my stills camera at the moment.

If anyone has any specific questions happy to help if i can..

cheers
Paul

Paul Curtis, VFX & Post | Canterbury, UK


Re: Curves and Bit Depth - was Sigma fp

Pawel Achtel, ACS
 

Ø  [Ben Allan] I think the confusion about this was born with Kodak calling their original LUTs a LOG to LIN conversion meaning that it was - “more linear than LOG” ;-)  Kodak though, also accurately described Cineon LOG as a "log-like” exposure response - ie. not strictly logarithmic.

 

Thanks Ben for pointing this all out – all relevant and all correct!

Indeed, uncompressed RAW still requires a curve, whether it is for display, “linearization” or one that “looks more the way our eyes see”. But, in my view, camera is not the place to apply it. There are many advantages of applying it downstream (in post). The reason I would not want any curve applied in-camera is because there are other processing steps that are more beneficial to be applied upstream and which should not be applied in-camera because such processing is either too expensive in terms of GPU required or there is not enough control to do so in-camera, or both.

 

As I said, using log encoding instead of linear saves maybe 20% (12-bit -> 10-bit), give or take depending on the actual implementation. I would call this saving insignificant. And yes, absolutely, the actual processing is usually done at higher bit depth: usually 14-bit or 16-bit to avoid adding quantization noise during the conversion process. Some people, incorrectly, assume that there is actually 14-bit or 16-bit sensor data there; nope! There isn’t!

 

Ø  [Mitch Gross] DPs who don’t have to care about workflow want uncompressed RAW.

Huh? Uncompressed RAW gives you more, not less, control and image quality during post workflow.

Compressed RAW was revolutionary (and beneficial) back in 2009 when storage was expensive (and slow). This is not the case now. Solid state storage is counted in Terabytes these days and offers speeds sufficient for real-time uncompressed 4K+ transfer and playback.

This storage can be purchased in office supplies at low cost. If storage media cost is an issue, perhaps a better cinematographer would be a better way to fix the problem. J

 

Uncompressed RAW is most often quicker (and cheaper) in post than compressed RAW because compression uses GPU to decompress. And, the better the compression the more GPU it will use. At higher resolutions it is very difficult to implement real-time compression that wouldn’t require a $10,000 GPU to compress/decompress in real time.

 

Ø  [Geoff Boyle] The thing is, we're back at the my number is bigger than your number game, and it's bullshit.

Ø  The only thing that matters is what the image looks like.

Sorry Geoff, but I strongly disagree. You can’t compare anything unless you can quantify it. And, in order to quantify it, you need to measure it and put a number on it. It’s called an objective test.

And yes, one number will be bigger than the other number: this is the whole point of testing. It’s called science, not “bullshit”, and this is how equipment is professionally tested and evaluated. Otherwise it is just unsupported, meaningless personal opinion, which is fine, but also completely useless when it comes to making an informed decision J

 

Ø  I don't know of any cinematographer who has refused to shoot with an Alexa because the Res was too low. It's still the camera that is used as a reference.

I agree. Alexa LF produces an amazing amount of detail and contrast. And, indeed, I had an opportunity to measure MTF of Alexa LF (actually put a number on it) and it was the highest I have measured on any other mass-produced digital cinema camera and exceeding that of other “6K’, “8K” and “12K” cameras. A very interesting result. And, this is exactly why we need to measure and quantify things instead of making assumptions (or trust marketing bullshit).

 

More than happy to lend you Sigma fp to test, but it would be probably easier and quicker for me to source BMD 12K in Sydney. Or, we can shoot the same, repeatable test remotely and compare notes. Either way sounds like fun J

 

Kind Regards,

 

Pawel Achtel ACS B.Eng.(Hons) M.Sc.

“Sharp to the Edge”

 

ACHTEL PTY LIMITED, ABN 52 134 895 417

Website: www.achtel.com

Mobile: 040 747 2747 (overseas: +61 4 0747 2747)

Mail: PO BOX 557, Rockdale, NSW 2216, Australia

Address: RA 913 Coles Bay Rd., Coles Bay, TAS 7215, Australia

Location: S 42° 0'14.40"S, E 148°14'47.13"

Email: Pawel.Achtel@...

Facebook: facebook.com/PawelAchtel

Twitter: twitter.com/PawelAchtel

Skype: Pawel.Achtel

_._,_._,_


Re: Sigma fp

Geoff Boyle
 

Volunteers?
Sure, get me a Sigma FP and I'll shoot a comparison.
The thing is, we're back at the my number is bigger than your number game, and it's bullshit.
The only thing that matters is what the image looks like.
I don't know of any cinematographer who has refused to shoot with an Alexa because the Res was too low. It's still the camera that is used as a reference.
Who cares if the BMD 12K isn't the highest resolving camera around? It looks good and that is all that matters to me.
I'll not tell the Kodak/Agfa story again but I still believe in pretty not accurate pictures.

Cheers
Geoff Boyle NSC FBKS
EU based cinematographer


Re: Curves and Bit Depth - was Sigma fp

Ben Allan ACS
 

Of course, Linear is different to Rec.709.  Current display technology can’t reproduce a true linear image - ACES is an example of true linear encoding and how it looks.  I think the confusion about this was born with Kodak calling their original LUTs a LOG to LIN conversion meaning that it was - “more linear than LOG” ;-)  Kodak though, also accurately described Cineon LOG as a "log-like” exposure response - ie. not strictly logarithmic.

The other thing is that there is also a difference between mathematical log for storing data and visual LOG for creating a more grade-able image.  Most RAW formats use mathematical log to store the data but this needs to be converted into either a visual LOG format or something else like Rec.709 for playback. These visual LOG curves are much more subjective and often go wrong when the designer tries to makes them too mathematically correct. This subjective element is also why each manufacturer has their own LOG curve with it’s own LUT’s.  If they were all mathematically logarithmic then you could use the different manufacturers LUT’s interchangeably.

Because non-RAW recordings require in-camera image processing, many cameras do this at least at 14-bits because processing at higher bit depth than the input or output will produce more accurate results if any conversion is taking place.

Another thing worth remembering is that LOG recordings are called “compressed” in the sense that the compress a wider dynamic range into the same recording dynamics than a more linear format would.  This is a completely separate issue to data compression.

_______________________________
Ben Allan ACS CSI

Producer | Cinematographer | Colorist
ACS National Secretary
Host of "The T-Stop Inn” Podcast




On 27 Dec 2020, at 6:47 pm, Pawel Achtel ACS <pawel.achtel@...> wrote:

Most high-end sensors perform either 10-bit or 12-bit AD quantization. There is no useful signal below 12-bits in any sensor that I know. It is just noise.  


Re: Sigma fp

Pawel Achtel, ACS
 

Ø  12-bit raw footage with linear encoding clips harshly, and loses some highlight forgiveness (witness the AJA Cion). Log encoding enables 12-bit raw to deliver quality comparable to what's possible with 16-bit linear encoding, though there are of course some tradeoffs in highlight detail as a result. That's engineering for you; in the end, math and physics win every time.

 

This is incorrect. The sensor reads (in vast majority of cases) 12 bits or 10-bits linear. Only then, it can be converted to from linear to log. To say that 12-bit linear clips harshly and log doesn’t is just nonsense because log originates as 12-bit (or 10-bit) linear and cannot “unclip” signal that is already clipped.

 

Ø  Since there are lossless compression options, IMO uncompressed raw is simply silly. Just imagine the data rates we'd be looking at for 8K 16-bit footage -- never mind 12K, even with the slightly lower 12-bit depth. Uncompressed 8K or 12K would be simply insane.

 

There is no 16-bit sensor in existence: not 8K not 6K not 4K, not any K, so I have no idea what you are talking about. There are (very) few 14-bit attempts with (very) questionable benefits. Most high-end sensors perform either 10-bit or 12-bit AD quantization. There is no useful signal below 12-bits in any sensor that I know. It is just noise.  

And, as you referring to a “12K” example, BMD 12K camera compresses the hell out of the footage to the point that it actually doesn’t resolve even 4K detail. This is, what I would call poor use of bandwidth. Whilst I haven’t compared side-by-side Sigma fp 4K against BMD 12K, my bet would be that the former would resolve higher detail and do so with less bandwidth. It would be an interesting test to perform. Any volunteers?  

 

The beauty of uncompressed RAW is in that it doesn’t require much GPU processing in-camera. Real-time compression uses a lot of power, makes camera bigger at absolutely no benefit to the resulting image quality.

 

The reality is that uncompressed and unprocessed RAW can be much better treated in post with much higher degree of control. One of those things is noise reduction. Noise reduction applied at uncompressed RAW produces much better results (in terms of effectiveness as well as preserving detail) than it does after footage has been processed or compressed.

 

Ø  Again, there is zero value in uncompressed raw in this day and age.      

If you do not care about image quality, compression artefacts, dynamic range, noise and sharpness, sure, it may present zero value to you. Sigma fp has compressed recording options too for those that still use floppy discs. J

To me uncompressed RAW offers (by far) the best workflow possible with most options, control and preserving the highest image quality possible.

 

Kind Regards,

 

Pawel Achtel ACS B.Eng.(Hons) M.Sc.

“Sharp to the Edge”

 

ACHTEL PTY LIMITED, ABN 52 134 895 417

Website: www.achtel.com

Mobile: 040 747 2747 (overseas: +61 4 0747 2747)

Mail: PO BOX 557, Rockdale, NSW 2216, Australia

Address: RA 913 Coles Bay Rd., Coles Bay, TAS 7215, Australia

Location: S 42° 0'14.40"S, E 148°14'47.13"

Email: Pawel.Achtel@...

Facebook: facebook.com/PawelAchtel

Twitter: twitter.com/PawelAchtel

Skype: Pawel.Achtel

 

From: cml-raw-log-hdr@... [mailto:cml-raw-log-hdr@...] On Behalf Of Rakesh Malik
Sent: Sunday, 27 December 2020 2:44 PM
To: cml-raw-log-hdr@...
Subject: Re: [cml-raw-log-hdr] Sigma fp

 

12-bit raw footage with linear encoding clips harshly, and loses some highlight forgiveness (witness the AJA Cion). Log encoding enables 12-bit raw to deliver quality comparable to what's possible with 16-bit linear encoding, though there are of course some tradeoffs in highlight detail as a result. That's engineering for you; in the end, math and physics win every time.

 

More important however is that there are a lot of workflows where ANY flavor of raw is overkill, and for those clients tend to favor codecs like ProRes, and for those log encoding is a big help.

 

Since there are lossless compression options, IMO uncompressed raw is simply silly. Just imagine the data rates we'd be looking at for 8K 16-bit footage -- never mind 12K, even with the slightly lower 12-bit depth. Uncompressed 8K or 12K would be simply insane.

 

Black Magic added lossless compressed cDNG to its first Pocket cinema camera, and it made a huge difference in data rates -- but being lossless, it has no effect on the data itself.

 

Again, there is zero value in uncompressed raw in this day and age.

-----------------------------

 

 

Rakesh Malik

about.me/WhiteCranePhoto

Director of Photography, Colorist

 

 

 

 

On Sat, Dec 26, 2020 at 7:28 PM Pawel Achtel ACS <pawel.achtel@...> wrote:

Ø  I like having a raw option, but I don't see any point in uncompressed raw. It's a waste of space

 

So, how much do you save with Log? 2 bits (20%)?

Do you prefer compression artefacts, instead? Again, in my experience, images from Sigma fp are actually cleaner and with less artefacts than that of many (most) high-end digital cinema cameras. This camera punches way above its weight and I would not hesitate to use it as A-camera on A-grade movie.

 

Ø  Uncompressed RAW has been available for well over a decade on major camera systems and devices I’ve been directly involved with. The vast majority of people who owned these or considered owning them hated the workflow and often did workarounds to avoid it.

 

Mitch, as you said: this was a decade ago. J Storage has increased dramatically in size and speed since then. I think 370MB/s is very reasonable and not that much higher than Log and/or compressed formats. What is, however compelling about uncompressed RAW is that it is less processed, richer and more forgivable format. To me it is an advantage, not drawback. It is upstream from Log or compressed formats. You can always create a Log from it or/and compress it if space is an issue.

 

Kind Regards,

 

Pawel Achtel ACS B.Eng.(Hons) M.Sc.

“Sharp to the Edge”

 

ACHTEL PTY LIMITED, ABN 52 134 895 417

Website: www.achtel.com

Mobile: 040 747 2747 (overseas: +61 4 0747 2747)

Mail: PO BOX 557, Rockdale, NSW 2216, Australia

Address: RA 913 Coles Bay Rd., Coles Bay, TAS 7215, Australia

Location: S 42° 0'14.40"S, E 148°14'47.13"

Email: Pawel.Achtel@...

Facebook: facebook.com/PawelAchtel

Twitter: twitter.com/PawelAchtel

Skype: Pawel.Achtel

 

From: cml-raw-log-hdr@... [mailto:cml-raw-log-hdr@...] On Behalf Of Mitch Gross
Sent: Sunday, 27 December 2020 1:27 PM
To: cml-raw-log-hdr@...
Subject: Re: [cml-raw-log-hdr] Sigma fp

 

Because uncompressed RAW means huge files that take up a lot of disk space, take a lot of time to transfer, and require considerable computer power to deal with. But with Log encoding you get the vast majority of flexibility in what the sensor can capture but recorded in a data scale that is reasonable enough to everyone to work with. Clients won’t complain about the data load and the work can happen quickly and effectively. 

 

Uncompressed RAW has been available for well over a decade on major camera systems and devices I’ve been directly involved with. The vast majority of people who owned these or considered owning them hated the workflow and often did workarounds to avoid it. When reasonably compressed Log recording became available to these same devices their popularity skyrocketed. It has happened numerous times. 

 

DPs who don’t have to care about workflow want uncompressed RAW. DPs shooting for the highest level productions want uncompressed RAW. I understand that. But they comprise an infinitesimal percentage of actual users. Most people want the advantages of capturing all that dynamic range while not having the burden of uncompressed RAW workflow. For a petite and inexpensive camera such as the Sigma FP I would argue that the vast majority of people considering its use, compressed Log video is far more attractive than uncompressed RAW. 

Mitch Gross

New York

 

On Dec 26, 2020, at 6:46 PM, Pawel Achtel ACS <pawel.achtel@...> wrote:

[Mitch Gross] I would expect that Log encoding is more useful to a vast number of CMLers and DPs in general than Uncompressed RAW recording.

Why?


Re: Sigma fp

Mitch Gross
 

Time is money. Technology is cheaper & faster than ever before of course, but that also means that it’s cheaper & faster for other formats as well as uncompressed RAW. Clients get used to various advantages quickly, and one cannot put the toothpaste back in the tube.

Uncompressed RAW is not necessary for the vast amount of production. It just isn’t. But a Log encoded codec of decent quality can work great. It means small, cheap storage on set and off, reduced data transfer times (a HUGE deal with uncompressed RAW), and easy one-less-thing-to-think-about post workflow for production.

Deliver quality images in a familiar way that doesn’t slow down the person who signs the checks.


Mitch Gross
New York

On Dec 26, 2020, at 10:44 PM, Rakesh Malik <tamerlin@...> wrote:


12-bit raw footage with linear encoding clips harshly, and loses some highlight forgiveness (witness the AJA Cion). Log encoding enables 12-bit raw to deliver quality comparable to what's possible with 16-bit linear encoding, though there are of course some tradeoffs in highlight detail as a result. That's engineering for you; in the end, math and physics win every time.

More important however is that there are a lot of workflows where ANY flavor of raw is overkill, and for those clients tend to favor codecs like ProRes, and for those log encoding is a big help.

Since there are lossless compression options, IMO uncompressed raw is simply silly. Just imagine the data rates we'd be looking at for 8K 16-bit footage -- never mind 12K, even with the slightly lower 12-bit depth. Uncompressed 8K or 12K would be simply insane.

Black Magic added lossless compressed cDNG to its first Pocket cinema camera, and it made a huge difference in data rates -- but being lossless, it has no effect on the data itself.

Again, there is zero value in uncompressed raw in this day and age.
-----------------------------


On Sat, Dec 26, 2020 at 7:28 PM Pawel Achtel ACS <pawel.achtel@...> wrote:

Ø  I like having a raw option, but I don't see any point in uncompressed raw. It's a waste of space

 

So, how much do you save with Log? 2 bits (20%)?

Do you prefer compression artefacts, instead? Again, in my experience, images from Sigma fp are actually cleaner and with less artefacts than that of many (most) high-end digital cinema cameras. This camera punches way above its weight and I would not hesitate to use it as A-camera on A-grade movie.

 

Ø  Uncompressed RAW has been available for well over a decade on major camera systems and devices I’ve been directly involved with. The vast majority of people who owned these or considered owning them hated the workflow and often did workarounds to avoid it.

 

Mitch, as you said: this was a decade ago. J Storage has increased dramatically in size and speed since then. I think 370MB/s is very reasonable and not that much higher than Log and/or compressed formats. What is, however compelling about uncompressed RAW is that it is less processed, richer and more forgivable format. To me it is an advantage, not drawback. It is upstream from Log or compressed formats. You can always create a Log from it or/and compress it if space is an issue.

 

Kind Regards,

 

Pawel Achtel ACS B.Eng.(Hons) M.Sc.

“Sharp to the Edge”

 

ACHTEL PTY LIMITED, ABN 52 134 895 417

Website: www.achtel.com

Mobile: 040 747 2747 (overseas: +61 4 0747 2747)

Mail: PO BOX 557, Rockdale, NSW 2216, Australia

Address: RA 913 Coles Bay Rd., Coles Bay, TAS 7215, Australia

Location: S 42° 0'14.40"S, E 148°14'47.13"

Email: Pawel.Achtel@...

Facebook: facebook.com/PawelAchtel

Twitter: twitter.com/PawelAchtel

Skype: Pawel.Achtel

 

From: cml-raw-log-hdr@... [mailto:cml-raw-log-hdr@...] On Behalf Of Mitch Gross
Sent: Sunday, 27 December 2020 1:27 PM
To: cml-raw-log-hdr@...
Subject: Re: [cml-raw-log-hdr] Sigma fp

 

Because uncompressed RAW means huge files that take up a lot of disk space, take a lot of time to transfer, and require considerable computer power to deal with. But with Log encoding you get the vast majority of flexibility in what the sensor can capture but recorded in a data scale that is reasonable enough to everyone to work with. Clients won’t complain about the data load and the work can happen quickly and effectively. 

 

Uncompressed RAW has been available for well over a decade on major camera systems and devices I’ve been directly involved with. The vast majority of people who owned these or considered owning them hated the workflow and often did workarounds to avoid it. When reasonably compressed Log recording became available to these same devices their popularity skyrocketed. It has happened numerous times. 

 

DPs who don’t have to care about workflow want uncompressed RAW. DPs shooting for the highest level productions want uncompressed RAW. I understand that. But they comprise an infinitesimal percentage of actual users. Most people want the advantages of capturing all that dynamic range while not having the burden of uncompressed RAW workflow. For a petite and inexpensive camera such as the Sigma FP I would argue that the vast majority of people considering its use, compressed Log video is far more attractive than uncompressed RAW. 

Mitch Gross

New York



On Dec 26, 2020, at 6:46 PM, Pawel Achtel ACS <pawel.achtel@...> wrote:

[Mitch Gross] I would expect that Log encoding is more useful to a vast number of CMLers and DPs in general than Uncompressed RAW recording.

Why?


Re: Sigma fp

Rakesh Malik
 

12-bit raw footage with linear encoding clips harshly, and loses some highlight forgiveness (witness the AJA Cion). Log encoding enables 12-bit raw to deliver quality comparable to what's possible with 16-bit linear encoding, though there are of course some tradeoffs in highlight detail as a result. That's engineering for you; in the end, math and physics win every time.

More important however is that there are a lot of workflows where ANY flavor of raw is overkill, and for those clients tend to favor codecs like ProRes, and for those log encoding is a big help.

Since there are lossless compression options, IMO uncompressed raw is simply silly. Just imagine the data rates we'd be looking at for 8K 16-bit footage -- never mind 12K, even with the slightly lower 12-bit depth. Uncompressed 8K or 12K would be simply insane.

Black Magic added lossless compressed cDNG to its first Pocket cinema camera, and it made a huge difference in data rates -- but being lossless, it has no effect on the data itself.

Again, there is zero value in uncompressed raw in this day and age.
-----------------------------


On Sat, Dec 26, 2020 at 7:28 PM Pawel Achtel ACS <pawel.achtel@...> wrote:

Ø  I like having a raw option, but I don't see any point in uncompressed raw. It's a waste of space

 

So, how much do you save with Log? 2 bits (20%)?

Do you prefer compression artefacts, instead? Again, in my experience, images from Sigma fp are actually cleaner and with less artefacts than that of many (most) high-end digital cinema cameras. This camera punches way above its weight and I would not hesitate to use it as A-camera on A-grade movie.

 

Ø  Uncompressed RAW has been available for well over a decade on major camera systems and devices I’ve been directly involved with. The vast majority of people who owned these or considered owning them hated the workflow and often did workarounds to avoid it.

 

Mitch, as you said: this was a decade ago. J Storage has increased dramatically in size and speed since then. I think 370MB/s is very reasonable and not that much higher than Log and/or compressed formats. What is, however compelling about uncompressed RAW is that it is less processed, richer and more forgivable format. To me it is an advantage, not drawback. It is upstream from Log or compressed formats. You can always create a Log from it or/and compress it if space is an issue.

 

Kind Regards,

 

Pawel Achtel ACS B.Eng.(Hons) M.Sc.

“Sharp to the Edge”

 

ACHTEL PTY LIMITED, ABN 52 134 895 417

Website: www.achtel.com

Mobile: 040 747 2747 (overseas: +61 4 0747 2747)

Mail: PO BOX 557, Rockdale, NSW 2216, Australia

Address: RA 913 Coles Bay Rd., Coles Bay, TAS 7215, Australia

Location: S 42° 0'14.40"S, E 148°14'47.13"

Email: Pawel.Achtel@...

Facebook: facebook.com/PawelAchtel

Twitter: twitter.com/PawelAchtel

Skype: Pawel.Achtel

 

From: cml-raw-log-hdr@... [mailto:cml-raw-log-hdr@...] On Behalf Of Mitch Gross
Sent: Sunday, 27 December 2020 1:27 PM
To: cml-raw-log-hdr@...
Subject: Re: [cml-raw-log-hdr] Sigma fp

 

Because uncompressed RAW means huge files that take up a lot of disk space, take a lot of time to transfer, and require considerable computer power to deal with. But with Log encoding you get the vast majority of flexibility in what the sensor can capture but recorded in a data scale that is reasonable enough to everyone to work with. Clients won’t complain about the data load and the work can happen quickly and effectively. 

 

Uncompressed RAW has been available for well over a decade on major camera systems and devices I’ve been directly involved with. The vast majority of people who owned these or considered owning them hated the workflow and often did workarounds to avoid it. When reasonably compressed Log recording became available to these same devices their popularity skyrocketed. It has happened numerous times. 

 

DPs who don’t have to care about workflow want uncompressed RAW. DPs shooting for the highest level productions want uncompressed RAW. I understand that. But they comprise an infinitesimal percentage of actual users. Most people want the advantages of capturing all that dynamic range while not having the burden of uncompressed RAW workflow. For a petite and inexpensive camera such as the Sigma FP I would argue that the vast majority of people considering its use, compressed Log video is far more attractive than uncompressed RAW. 

Mitch Gross

New York



On Dec 26, 2020, at 6:46 PM, Pawel Achtel ACS <pawel.achtel@...> wrote:

[Mitch Gross] I would expect that Log encoding is more useful to a vast number of CMLers and DPs in general than Uncompressed RAW recording.

Why?


Re: Sigma fp

Pawel Achtel, ACS
 

Ø  I like having a raw option, but I don't see any point in uncompressed raw. It's a waste of space

 

So, how much do you save with Log? 2 bits (20%)?

Do you prefer compression artefacts, instead? Again, in my experience, images from Sigma fp are actually cleaner and with less artefacts than that of many (most) high-end digital cinema cameras. This camera punches way above its weight and I would not hesitate to use it as A-camera on A-grade movie.

 

Ø  Uncompressed RAW has been available for well over a decade on major camera systems and devices I’ve been directly involved with. The vast majority of people who owned these or considered owning them hated the workflow and often did workarounds to avoid it.

 

Mitch, as you said: this was a decade ago. J Storage has increased dramatically in size and speed since then. I think 370MB/s is very reasonable and not that much higher than Log and/or compressed formats. What is, however compelling about uncompressed RAW is that it is less processed, richer and more forgivable format. To me it is an advantage, not drawback. It is upstream from Log or compressed formats. You can always create a Log from it or/and compress it if space is an issue.

 

Kind Regards,

 

Pawel Achtel ACS B.Eng.(Hons) M.Sc.

“Sharp to the Edge”

 

ACHTEL PTY LIMITED, ABN 52 134 895 417

Website: www.achtel.com

Mobile: 040 747 2747 (overseas: +61 4 0747 2747)

Mail: PO BOX 557, Rockdale, NSW 2216, Australia

Address: RA 913 Coles Bay Rd., Coles Bay, TAS 7215, Australia

Location: S 42° 0'14.40"S, E 148°14'47.13"

Email: Pawel.Achtel@...

Facebook: facebook.com/PawelAchtel

Twitter: twitter.com/PawelAchtel

Skype: Pawel.Achtel

 

From: cml-raw-log-hdr@... [mailto:cml-raw-log-hdr@...] On Behalf Of Mitch Gross
Sent: Sunday, 27 December 2020 1:27 PM
To: cml-raw-log-hdr@...
Subject: Re: [cml-raw-log-hdr] Sigma fp

 

Because uncompressed RAW means huge files that take up a lot of disk space, take a lot of time to transfer, and require considerable computer power to deal with. But with Log encoding you get the vast majority of flexibility in what the sensor can capture but recorded in a data scale that is reasonable enough to everyone to work with. Clients won’t complain about the data load and the work can happen quickly and effectively. 

 

Uncompressed RAW has been available for well over a decade on major camera systems and devices I’ve been directly involved with. The vast majority of people who owned these or considered owning them hated the workflow and often did workarounds to avoid it. When reasonably compressed Log recording became available to these same devices their popularity skyrocketed. It has happened numerous times. 

 

DPs who don’t have to care about workflow want uncompressed RAW. DPs shooting for the highest level productions want uncompressed RAW. I understand that. But they comprise an infinitesimal percentage of actual users. Most people want the advantages of capturing all that dynamic range while not having the burden of uncompressed RAW workflow. For a petite and inexpensive camera such as the Sigma FP I would argue that the vast majority of people considering its use, compressed Log video is far more attractive than uncompressed RAW. 

Mitch Gross

New York



On Dec 26, 2020, at 6:46 PM, Pawel Achtel ACS <pawel.achtel@...> wrote:

[Mitch Gross] I would expect that Log encoding is more useful to a vast number of CMLers and DPs in general than Uncompressed RAW recording.

Why?


Re: Sigma fp

Daniel Rozsnyó
 


On 12/27/20 3:26 AM, Mitch Gross wrote:
Because uncompressed RAW means huge files that take up a lot of disk space, take a lot of time to transfer, and require considerable computer power to deal with. But with Log encoding you get the vast majority of flexibility in what the sensor can capture but recorded in a data scale that is reasonable enough to everyone to work with. Clients won’t complain about the data load and the work can happen quickly and effectively.


Sorry, but having LOG does not mean "huge compression" at all. Maybe you mix up things - like you bring in also AVC or HEVC to the process, those ones have such poor bit depth (8 or 10bit), so the only way to feed a wide dynamic range picture to these codecs is to apply a LOG conversion.

For me a LOG format compared to LINEAR is anything with missing codes - basically a LUT to convert from more bits to less bits. Like from 10 to 8 or from 12 to 10, or from 14 to 12. And that saves about 20% of data rate, in "uncompressed" form. Because LOG is not just a mapping scheme, but also a very simple and lossy compression (you are not able to recover the linear original, some posterization will happen).

Most of the BMD cams, which resolve more than 12 bits (eg. by a dual-gain readout) apply such log conversion silently even for the DNGs - (where the feature is called LinearizationTable), but in the rare case of the dual-gain ADC readout, there was never a linear range form, that would contain all the shades - basically the 11+11 bit reading, that covers 14 stops thanks to the 3 stop separation, is loss-lessly storable in a 12 bit form (1 bit to tell whether the shade is within the low or high gain, and the 11 bits of that gain).

So again, please do not mix apples and oranges. LOG is not related to huge compression. H264 and H265 are the ones to blame for the convenience of small files!


You are also wrong on the need of computer power - the uncompressed footage will be ALWAYS easier to process than any of the AVC/HEVC ones (try to render a clip with reversed time..). Drive capacity/speed or network bandwidth sure needs to be adjusted - I see no problem here, we have multi-gigabit SDI for two decades, and you still complain to not have enough power on your pocket calculator. Upgrade your gear, its doable.


The whole issue with uncompressed workflow (or the thing which killed it at classic vendors) was the absurd price of branded media, an even more absurd ratio of performance/price, which then resulted either in inability to keep up with the bitrate, or limited the usability because the low capacity was for silly short takes. Devices which offer recording to any media do a lot better job here.



Ing. Daniel Rozsnyo
camera developer
Prague, CZ

241 - 260 of 1983