Introduction to the Z90, NX80, and AX700

[Ricky Sharp]

And for me, that is really all that matters. A large enough jump over the X70 to upgrade. That plus the AF improvements move the Z90 from more of a "want" to a "need". Well, everything is ultimately a "want".

[Craig Seeman]

BTW checking his section on Picture Profile he mentions that the CINE Gammas have about 11 to 12 stops of Dynamic Range and that S-Log adds about 2 more stops.

Given that, I really don't think his comment about 14 stops is a mistake. Perhaps one might judge the dynamic range differently depending on how measured (noise floor for example) but it's clear that he's judging Cine Gammas as 11 - 12 and S-Log as about 14 (or maybe 13).

[Doug Jensen]

Greetings from Korea.
Hey, guys thanks for the nice comments. Just a quick message before I head out for the day.

Cliff may very well be correct about the DR. A reliable source told me 14-stops but I have no way of measuring that or verifying that myself. Perhaps I should have covered my ass by saying that in the video. But here is the key, if you watch my video I don't recommend shooting S-LOG with these cameras anyway. In fact, my feelings are even stronger on this point than may come across in the video. If you want the truth, S-LOG on these cameras looks like crap. So to me, the question of how much DR the cameras have is moot. I would never shoot with anything but one of the CINE gammas. I love the Z990, but not for it's HDR capabilities.

안녕
Annyeong

[Cliff Totten]

Originally Posted by Craig Seeman

BTW checking his section on Picture Profile he mentions that the CINE Gammas have about 11 to 12 stops of Dynamic Range and that S-Log adds about 2 more stops.

Given that, I really don't think his comment about 14 stops is a mistake. Perhaps one might judge the dynamic range differently depending on how measured (noise floor for example) but it's clear that he's judging Cine Gammas as 11 - 12 and S-Log as about 14 (or maybe 13).

Originally, when rec709 was developed, it had arround 6 stops of dynamic range. This is what 95%+ TVs on Earth have their contrast calibrated for today. However, with knees and shoulders and light tonal curves ( i.e. brightness compression) we can squeeze in another stop or two at best.

This is why we cant have "normal" contrast and good looking images that 14 stops or 20 stops or 100 stops of dynamic range.....and have it still look beautiful....in rec709.

The more dynamic range you "compress" into rec709, the lower and lower,...and more terrible....the contrast looks and gets.

Thats why I say; "if you are truly monitoring a standard rec709 recording and you see that it is gorgeous with great saturation and contrast....you are NOT recording much more than 7 stops". Certainly not 14 stops!

14 stops will look horrible in rec709. As its SUPPOSED to. Thats the whole point of log gamma curves!

Now, with HLG?...its a sharp knee after 65-ish IRE Its not a rec709 image and needs a LUT to watch to "properly" on rec709. But, I gotta say that the way they created that knee, it doesn't look "that" bad when watching without a LUT. That's partially because below 65 or 70 IRE, it basically IS rec709.

I dont "know" this yet but I suspect that there "could" be an argument by some of us that it's OK to shoot in HLG and color grade for rec709 delivery. Why?...because HLG will not need "heavy" stretching to normalize it to a high contrast rec709 image. It should require less pulling and less strain on 8bit stair steps to increase the contrast.

Does this mean that it's "easier" on an 8bit CODEC than "full" log? (i.e.Slog-2?) Possibly so, because its' starting point is already closer to rec709 than SLog-2 is today.

We'll see....

CT

[Cliff Totten]

Originally Posted by Doug Jensen

Greetings from Korea.
Hey, guys thanks for the nice comments. Just a quick message before I head out for the day.

Cliff may very well be correct about the DR. A reliable source told me 14-stops but I have no way of measuring that or verifying that myself. Perhaps I should have covered my ass by saying that in the video. But here is the key, if you watch my video I don't recommend shooting S-LOG with these cameras anyway. In fact, my feelings are even stronger on this point than may come across in the video. If you want the truth, S-LOG on these cameras looks like crap. So to me, the question of how much DR the cameras have is moot. I would never shoot with anything but one of the CINE gammas. I love the Z990, but not for it's HDR capabilities.

안녕
Annyeong

I will say that SLog-3 is horrible. I hate to say it but it's downright disgusting. I cant see how anybody on this forum could say it looks fine for them on their NX80/Z90. No chance in Hell.

But wait,...SLog-2 is "reasonable". "IF" you want 100% of what this sensor sees mapped form 0-255, than you CAN capture and get great benefit form that. BUT,...you must be willing to take the risk of having some possible banding. I have shot SLog-2 on the NX80 and RX10-III with fairly good success. I have pushed and pulled SLog-2 in post with 90% of everything being fine with no banding in 8bit. However, I also have say that I have occasionally gotten burned on "some" scenes with very "light" banding problems

I can also say without ANY doubt that 8bit 4:2:2 ProRes from this HDMI output will ABSOLUTELY grade better with less banding and compression artifacts than 8bit 4:2:0 XAVC-L/S. (It's sometimes hard to discern what is "true" 8bit banding and what is actually h.264 macroblocking and color cluster averaging)

I'd say use SLog-2...but very carefully...and dont use it for scenes that wont benefit from capturing 10 -11 stops. (like a well lit interview...studio stuff like that, or a cloudy/rainy day)

I agree with Doug that for "serious" Log recording, you need a 10bit color sampling and a durable 10bit CODEC. I have GH5 rig with true 10bit V-Log-L and FS700 12bit raw recording or to 10bit ProRes for that. (Its a relief to shoot freely in 10bit log with no worrying out in the field about what post is going to be like when you get home!!!)

CT

[Doug Jensen]

I guarantee, without any shadow of doubt, that anything someone wants to shoot with S-LOG2, S-LOG3, or HLG with the Z90 -- and spending all the time they want grading it in Resolve -- I can get a better image right straight onboard the camera with a simple WYSIWYG picture profile and no time in post spent grading at all. I guarantee it. And that includes HD.

And if I want to take that WYSIWYG image and grade it a little bit in post, I can make that look even better still.

[Cliff Totten]

I hear you Doug and I somewhat agree.

But...oh let's say "super bright" clouds. In the field, using a limited Cine profile, you might choose to clip them because you care more about that brown bear under a tree. And maybe that is the way you would have color graded that scene in post to rec709 "anyway". In this case, what you see is what you get. Nothing lost, nothing gained.

Or, "maybe" you shoot HLG and that brown bear under that YellowStone tree has the exact same exposure...but your clouds aren't clipped anymore and they have nice definition in them...you got them under the clip.

Now in post, you at least have the ability to change your mind on how to distribute those super whites. And,..Hell,..maybe you will take advantage of YouTube's new HDR upload ability today or down the road.

The argument for shooting Log over rec709 and WYSIWYG arguments applies to any and every camera that can shoot more dynamic range than it's limited Cine-type profiles or standard rec709 monitors can show.

Rec709 is here for the moment but it wont last forever. I think our high dynamic range (log and hybrid log) footage will last longer on our hard drives than rec709 TV's will on store shelves. ;- )

Its time to start thinking BT2020 or rec2020.

Not for today but for....tomorrow.

CT

[Doug Jensen]

Cliff, you're hypothetical scenarios might hold water with other S-LOG cinema cameras, after all I am a huge proponent of shoot S-LOG and/or RAW with my F55, FS7, etc. I don't shoot anything but S-LOG or RAW with those cameras. But what sounds good on paper falls apart with the small NXCAMs. Stop thinking about specific dynamic range issues and just focus on having a nice, high quality, representation of the scene -- and that's just not going to happen with S-LOG. What's the point of having whites that aren't clipped if the rest of the image looks like rubbish. Even major feature films and top-level television programs allow clipped hightlights at times. It is not the end of world and you shouldn't cut off your nose to spite your face. Dynamic range is not even close to the most important aspect of picture quality.

I won't be posting on this subject anymore because I know what I've seen with my own eyes and I don't need to waste my time trying to make the same point again and again. If someone chooses to disagree, they are free to shoot S-LOG all they want to . . . at their own peril.

[Cliff Totten]

"What's the point of having whites that aren't clipped if the rest of the image looks like rubbish."

I completely disagree with this statement. If you are trying to claim that SLog-2 or HLG on these cameras are "rubbish". They are NOT and I'm sure Sony would also agree with me on this. I know from your past posts that you are not a fan of Alpha cameras and using SLog on them either. They are not "rubbish". (although they "can" be if you under expose Slog incorrectly)


"Dynamic range is not even close to the most important aspect of picture quality."

I'm not sure if anybody here actually believes this either. Certainly not me. The ATRISTIC composition and shot framing abilities of the shooter and his/her ability to tell a story always trumps anything on the technical side. But, yes, high dynamic can help envoke a "wow" response from people that watch your material on an HDR TV. Have you been to Best Buy lately and seen a true HDR demonstration? I'm not talking about shooting 14 stops on your F55 and grading it to rec709. (something 99% of us do today) I'm talking about grading and watching it on a true HDR monitor. Among other qualities, the dynamic range plays ONE part of making you say "OMG,..that is beautiful".


"Cliff may very well be correct about the DR. A reliable source told me 14-stops but I have no way of measuring that or verifying that myself."

So this person told you the Z90 did 14 stops....and you actually believed this person enough to place that in your video? That didn't set off any alarms or questions in your mind like: "What?...this camera has 14 stops, the same dynamic range as my Sony F55 and FS7???" If your dynamic range performance opinion of the Z90 is THAT low, and given what you understand about the science of dynamic range,...than you should have called that person out and said. "Sorry, but that number sounds WAY off for a 1inch-type sensor." But for some reason, you ran with it anyway? Isn't this odd for somebody that believes this Z90's dynamic range ability is "rubbish"???

Another interesting thing to me about the Z90 is that months ago,...

I stated that Sony Phase Detection AF could track focus on my dogs running in my back yard faster than I could manually focus myself. You then proceeded to scold and chastise me for my manual inadequate focus pulling skills. Now that you have had a chance to actually USE Sony's PD-AF, you literally state in your video a 180 degree change. You now say that "Sony's AF tracks objects BETTER than you could manually track yourself" The very same thing you flamed me for saying?? Sorry,..that REALLY makes me laugh and feel vindicated. ;-)

Anyway....For anybody reading this. TEST SLog-2 and HLG for YOURSELF. Dont believe me or Doug. Shoot those two gamma curves in your backyard or shoot your pets with it and see if it's any kind of doomsday bomb in your video. Make sure to expose to the right +1 or +2 stops. Press it hard but dont allow it to clip what you care about. Take your test footage, use a good LUT as a starting point and grade it. Does your backyard or your cat look like true "rubbish"? Color grading can take some time to learn but you can get "good" and "solid" results from the Z90. No,..no,..not F55, F5, FS5 or FS700 good. But still very good anyway for a very small $2k camera. Do this with your A7s-II, A7R-III and A6500 too!

Last but not least,...I respect Doug and I know he is a good guy. I have shaken his hand at NAB at least three times that I can remember. Including 2017 and I'll very gladly do it again in April. He's even nicer in person than he appears to be in forums like this. I respectfully disagree with him sometimes on things like dynamic range and autofocus but I still respect him. (although, he seems to agree with ME on PDAF now today! ;-)

It's all good. Guys,...take what ANYbody says with a grain of salt but always confirm things for YOURSELF too.

We talk allot of "opinions" here and things that work for each of us. We have allot of long time "habbits" and pre-concieved notions that we talk about every day. But your mileage can always vary.

There is no "profoundly" SINGLE or ONLY way to do anything in this industry. May people sharp (including Hollywood DP's) break rules everyday.

CT

[Doug Jensen]

Ooooooh Cliff, there is so much I am tempted to say. I disagree with almost every word you've said. But I'm stepping away from this conversation. You can have the last word.

[Cliff Totten]

I actually don't "want" anybody to believe you or me. I'd rather people just try it for themselves and let THEM be the judge of their own camera.

Then have them come back and tell us what they find. ;-)

Doug, we both know that you and I could go 'round and 'round on these two topics for 100 years. Haha...

In the end, I know what works and doesn't work for me and you can say the same too! That's all good. I'm never going to say that anybody is "wrong" when they are doing something that works great for them.

I know an ASC DP that swears that any rolling shutter camera is "garbage"!! He only deals in global shutter cameras and prefers the Sony F65 because it has a "real" spinning mechanical shutter. In his mind, ALL rolling shutter camera's are "garbage". So I'm like,..."whoa...OK,..what can I say to that?" I cant really say he's "wrong"...right? But hey,..rolling shutter cameras work FINE for "me"!! (So, in a way,...we are BOTH right!...he hates them and I'm OK with them!)

Folks, just try it in your backyard and report back to us. It's about "you", not about "us".

Everybody has different tastes and expectations. If you are expecting FS7 quality,..you will be disappointed. If you are expecting iPhone quality,..you will be shockingly surprised.

Now,...if you have globlal shutter expectations and rolling shutter is "garbage" to you? What in the world can I tell that guy to change his mind? Do I try? Do I even care?

Nope!

You are an alright guy, Doug,...just don't punch me at the Sony booth this year! lol

CT ;- )

[Craig Seeman]

I thought I'd through this into the mix from Alister Chapman and 8 bit and S-Log 2

On the Sony A7s
Exposing and Using S-Log2 on the Sony A7s. Part One: Gamma and Exposure. | XDCAM-USER.COM

and this on 8 bit.
Why It's Helpful To Over Expose S-Log, Especially If You Only Have 8 Bit Recording. | XDCAM-USER.COM

And this on the Sony A6300
Using S-Log2 and S-Log3 with the Sony A6300 (with LUT's to download). | XDCAM-USER.COM

While he doesn't think S-log 3 is viable for 8 bit he obviously feels S-Log 2 can work with proper (over) exposure and not pushing it too hard.

[Cliff Totten]

Alister is right. I have done it countless times myself in 3 or 4 years.

Yes, 8bit is NOT what I want either. I do allot of V-Log now in 10bit with the GH5 and 12bit raw to 10bit ProRes on the FS700. So yes,...Doug is right, 10bit is what you REALLY want for any log. There is a big difference in the amount of stretching and pulling you can do. I recognize this completely.

But this does NOT mean that you "can't" benefit from NX80/Z90 11 stop, 8bit recordings either. You CAN but you need to do it carefully.

Again,...don't listen to any of us. If you buy an NX80/Z90, take it out for some SLog-2 tests and judge it for yourself You will never know until you try.

Don't do a paying job with it yet, just shoot "throw away" stuff and give it a shot FIRST. Even if you only use it to understand how log works and use it to teach yourself log color grading...it's a great tool have and to learn and the grading principles are roughly the same on any log camera.

Actually, after years of SLog grading, when I switched over to Panasonic V-Log (which uses VariCam color science) I couldn't believe how easy V-Log was! The colors always lined up perfectly. For years, I had to fight SLog's green channel "twist" and was always fighting that green/blue hue in so many SLog recordings. (This is the common problem that makes green grass have that unnatural "radioactive" glow to it.)

But yeah,..if you learn SLog, then V-Log is a total cakewalk!

I'm a big fan of Alister Chapman. Sony trusts him to speak at the Sony pavilion about SLog and other Sony technology every year at NAB and at IBC.

CT

[Doug Jensen]

Cliff, as soon as you or Alister have some beautifully graded S-LOG footage from the Z90, ready to present to the world in all it's glory, I would love to see it. As an added bonus it would be great if you could shoot the same exact scene with your choice of PP 1- 6 (or any other gamma you might choose) to really illustrate just how much superior S-LOG is. I would absolutely love to see the testing that I'm sure you must have already conducted. Please let us know when this video is uploaded and ready for our viewing pleasure.

BTW, have you posted any Z90 footage yet that we could take a look at?

[Cliff Totten]

What will you be looking for? You will see a standard rec709 image with standard rec709 contrast. The same holds true if I shot something on a Sony F55, FS7, RED or Arri.

Look at any Hollywwod Blu-ray. All you see is standard rec709 on that thing. Yet, most movies are captured with much higher dynamic range cameras.

So yes....if your goal is to deliver rec709 ONLY. Than yes, just take a 15 stop Arri or RED camera and shoot in a (6stop) rec709 profile and expose EXACTLY in the field as you want the rec709 Blu-ray to look....and its a wrap. No expensive Hollywood colorist needed.

When you watch a 6-7 stop rec709 image, the viewer will NEVER know two things:

1.) What "more" did that camera see in the field with that 15stop ARRI camera that I "cant" see in rec709 today. Did the camera man under expose or over expose by a little bit? You and I will NEVER see those mistakes on a Blu-ray. Only the colorist saw it.

2.) What did the colorist actually "throw away" to grade this down to the Hollywood rec709 Blu-ray that I'm watching?

In other words, his camera caught his bear eating a dead animal under the tree...AND...100% of that amazing, sun blasted waterfall behind him. However, the colorist "chose" to "throw away" and blow out the waterfall and keep the bear instead for the 6 stop rec709 Blu-ray that im watching.

This is the beauty of 7-15 stop log capture. Its never to show the "viewer" 15 stops "today" on his 6 stop rec709 TV or Blu-ray. For that, just burn the ungraded log file to his Blu-ray,..Its so that the colorist has the ability to "choose" which 6 stops out of his 15 to use "today".

Every single Hollwood Blu-ray today shows us clippied highlights and crushed blacks...but those cameras caught allot more that we cant see because of rec709 limitations. Tomorrow, when those same movies are released on bt2020 systems, we will see allot more than we do today from a movie shot just a few years ago.

Going further....lets forget about rec709 for a second. With new bt2020 and rec2020 HDR TV's, the colorist has the luxury and ability to "throw away" MUCH less than he/she does for rec709 today.

How can anyone judge a log recording by looking at a HIGHLY LIMITED rec709 colorist "down-grade"?

Yes...a PERFECTLY exposed rec709 recording will produce a PERFECTLY exposed rec709 file on YouTube. How can I argue that?

But,...this is absolutely NOT the point of shooting log on ANY camera today.