snapsy wrote:
never really understood that argument - it's like showing a car made to do 130 mph losing control when that speed is reached, then someone saying "yeah, but you're not supposed to drive it at 130 mph".
OK, you've never understood it. Since we're playing in car analogies, here's two that I feel are more germane to the problem:
"What's the point in having a car that easily does 130mph when all you're using it for is dropping off the kids and getting groceries?"
"You know, *some people* manage to drive it at 130mph successfully, they just happen to do a lot more prep going into a turn than someone just blindly jamming the gas pedal to the floor and hoping for the best."
My point is that, either this isn't an issue for everyone *not shooting* N-log, Nraw at higher ISOs (probably the vast majority of video shooters), or it's not an issue for people who have been sufficiently advised/warned and know what they're doing.
I don't really know offhand of many examples of people looking for the entire dynamic range of a sensor versus selective dynamic range of a scene and working to meet that*. If you watch the work of really good DPs, they throw out entire regions of exposure value often.
*Here's a video I just stumbled upon where the guy basically says what I typed verbatim - you shoot for the scene, not for the sensor: ?si=UgUwkQ9LtTasiNmf&t=2482 (should jump to 41:22, but the whole video is worthwhile)
The "real" footage comment is more simple than I think you're taking it as: nobody delivering completed content for clients (as opposed to demonstrating a problem for demos sake) sets up even b-roll like the footage in your video and then just accepts problems. They work to fix the problems, and since the weights aren't going anywhere there's many remedies at hand. Just demonstrating a problem isn't in itself an effective way of working. It's notable, it has educational value, but it's such a base component of a much larger, more nuanced workflow.
snapsy wrote:
I dedicated a section to an effective remediation strategy of the flickering issue in the very same video I originally demonstrated the issue.
To be completely honest I didn't stay for all of your video because it seemed to start from a false premise of "proper exposure", when it looked to me underexposed and pushed - that was enough for me to look elsewhere for a more compelling approach to the flicker problem.
jlafferty wrote:
"What's the point in having a car that easily does 130mph when all you're using it for is dropping off the kids and getting groceries?"
"You know, *some people* manage to drive it at 130mph successfully, they just happen to do a lot more prep going into a turn than someone just blindly jamming the gas pedal to the floor and hoping for the best."
What additional prep do you believe could be done to approach a high-DR scene, particularly when the lighting can't be controlled?
jlafferty wrote:
My point is that, either this isn't an issue for everyone *not shooting* N-log, Nraw at higher ISOs (probably the vast majority of video shooters), or it's not an issue for people who have been sufficiently advised/warned and know what they're doing.
The purpose of the video was to advise and warn people about the issue. How does one achieve that without actually highlighting the issue?
jlafferty wrote:
I don't really know offhand of many examples of people looking for the entire dynamic range of a sensor versus selective dynamic range of a scene and working to meet that. If you watch the work of really good DPs, they throw out entire regions of exposure value often.
The "real" footage comment is more simple than I think you're taking it as: nobody delivering completed content for clients (as opposed to demonstrating a problem for demos sake) sets up even b-roll like the footage in your video and then just accepts problems. They work to fix the problems, and since the weights aren't going anywhere there's many remedies at hand. Just demonstrating a problem isn't in itself an effective way of working. It's notable, it has educational value, but it's such a base component of a much larger, more nuanced workflow. ...Show more →
Agreed. But what does an explainer video made specifically to showcase a problem and solution have to do with how people work? Are you saying they wouldn't be apply to apply the post-processing remedy I discussed to their own "real world" footage?
jlafferty wrote:
To be completely honest I didn't stay for all of your video because it seemed to start from a false premise of "proper exposure", when it looked to me underexposed and pushed - that was enough for me to look elsewhere for a more compelling approach to the flicker problem.
I showed the zebras and histogram in the first 15 seconds of the video.
snapsy wrote:
What additional prep do you believe could be done to approach a high-DR scene, particularly when the lighting can't be controlled?
I think this is where we're going to accept that we have different values, different ideas about approaching and managing a shoot, etc. If you watched the videos I shared earlier, one of the posters rightly makes a point that if you're *forced* into a situation where you're not controlling lighting, it's also highly probable that you wouldn't be shooting N-log, Nraw where this issue occurs.
I'm sure that, in service of your argument/position, you can make up a situation where you demonstrate that this isn't true, but it's academic. A "high-DR" scene where "lighting can't be controlled" sounds like event shooting, and event shooters... the vast majority anyway... aren't shooting at, what is it, 25-30gb per minute that the Z6III shooting Nraw requires.
(Ah, let's also remember that this problem is fairly under control at this point? So apart from defending a position on the internet I don't get why you'd advance a hypothetical. This is again the difference between academic vs. real world.)
jlafferty wrote:
I think this is where we're going to accept that we have different values, different ideas about approaching and managing a shoot, etc. If you watched the videos I shared earlier, one of the posters rightly makes a point that if you're *forced* into a situation where you're not controlling lighting, it's also highly probable that you wouldn't be shooting N-log, Nraw where this issue occurs.
I'm sure that, in service of your argument/position, you can make up a situation where you demonstrate that this isn't true, but it's academic. A "high-DR" scene where "lighting can't be controlled" sounds like event shooting, and event shooters... the vast majority anyway... aren't shooting at, what is it, 25-30gb per minute that the Z6III shooting Nraw requires. ...Show more →
The purpose of log encoding is to encode high-DR scenes, which would be situations specifically where you actually can't control lighting. The opposite case is when you can control the lighting, which would be the DP scenario you described where fill, reflectors, flags, GNDs, etc... are utilized by DP's to reduce DR - that's the scenario where log encoding isn't needed. So yes, I agree we appear to have different views on the matter.
jlafferty wrote:
(Ah, let's also remember that this problem is fairly under control at this point? So apart from defending a position on the internet I don't get why you'd advance a hypothetical. This is again the difference between academic vs. real world.)
The flickering problem is definitely under control. The general noise issue / lower DR is not. A competing camera with the same sensor was recently released that avoids this issue, which makes it no longer hypothetical since an alternative now exists.
To me the Testcams channel is an incredibly helpful resource for understanding sensors and codecs and how to get the best out of them.
Panasonic and Nikon use the same Sony sensor. Panansonic use a feature of the sensor which allows for the frame readout time to be doubled to improve the noise performance. They make this feature user selectable, at least in part. I consider this to be a great feature and preferable to Nikon's implementation of the same sensor. We should not be defensive about that but rather hope that Nikon can introduce the feature via a firmware update.
nhmorgan wrote:
Is this possibly something Nikon can upgrade (the better DR) through firmware, or is this likely locked into the hardware processing of the sensor?
It depends on how Sony implemented the dual-gain output on this particular sensor. Based on data sheets for their smaller sensors with similar HDR features, there are variants that require ISP (Image Signal Processor) support to handling novel pixel clocking output schemes for this mode, whereas other sensors that do the full integration of the two readouts on-sensor and clock the data out like ordinary frames. If it's the former then Nikon's ISP (EXPEED 7) would need the logic to handle the novel output, which I'm guessing it doesn't have and thus the Z6 III can't support. If it's the latter then theoretically Nikon could enable it with firmware support. In either case I'm guessing we're not going to see it on the Z6 III but I expect future models to support it.
I use both cameras. Honestly I'm a bit disappointed by the Z6III. I got the camera only for the fast Nikon lenses because I can't found something equivalent in L-mount and they are indeed great. But the Z6III, I don't like it so much.
My Z6III is noisier than my S1II, especially in video (I only shoot raw video) and yes I know how to expose V-log and N-log.
Same in photos where the S1II has clearly better DR when using the mechanical shutter.
The AF human/animal tracking is a bit better than on the Z6III but the S1II is much more accurate for slow or statics subjects single pics. On the Z6III, I sometimes get slightly out of focus pics even with focus priority when using fast lenses (no matter the focus mode I use), so I often shoot in small burst (like 2 or 3 photos) with this camera to be sure to get at least one pic with 100% accurate focus, if I only shoot single I often get slightly soft pics. With the S1II, I rarely have to do this because the camera is more accurate when using single point area focus, again only with slow or static subjects, because when tracking, it loses the focus a bit more than the Z6III.
