Category Archives: Workflow

Why you need to sort out your post production monitoring!

One of THE most common complaints I hear, day in, day out, is: There is banding in my footage.

Before you start complaining about banding or other image artefacts ask yourself one very simply, but very important question: Do I know EXACTLY what is happening to my footage within my computer or playback system? As an example, editing on a computer your footage will be starting of at it’s native bit depth. It might then be converted to a different bit depth by the edit or grading software for manipulation. Then that new bit depth signal is passed to the computers graphic card to be displayed. At this point it will possibly be converted to another bit depth as it passes through the GPU and then it will be converted to the bit depth of the computers desktop display. From there you might be passing it down an HDMI cable where another bit depth change might be needed before it finally arrives at your monitor at goodness knows what bit depth.

The two images below are very telling. The first is a photo of a high end TV connected to my MacBook ProRetina via HDMI playing back a 10 bit ProRes file in HD. The bottom picture is exactly the same file being played back out of an Atomos Shogun via HDMI to exactly the same TV. The difference is striking to say the least. Same file, same TV, same resolution. The only difference is the top one is playing back off the computer, the lower from a proper video player. I also know from experience that if I plug in a proper video output device such as a Blackmagic Mini-monitor to the laptops Thunderbolt port I will not see the same artefacts as I do when using the computers built in HDMI.

And this is a not just a quirk of my laptop, my grading suite is exactly the same. If I use the PC’s built in HDMI the pictures suck. Lots of banding and other unwanted artefacts. Play back the same clip via a dedicated, made for video, internal PCI card such as a Decklink card and almost always all of the problems go away. If you use SDI rather than HDMI things tend to be even better.

So don’t skimp on your monitoring path if you really want to know what your footage looks like. Get a proper video card, don’t rely on the computers GPU. Get a decent monitor with an SDI input and try to avoid HDMI for any critical monitoring.

20170620_091235-1024x576 Why you need to sort out your post production monitoring!
Shot viewed on a good quality TV via HDMI from the computers built in graphics card. Notice all the banding.
20170620_091347-1024x576 Why you need to sort out your post production monitoring!
Exactly the same shot/clip as above. But this time played back over HDMI from an Atomos Shogun Flame onto the very same TV. Not how all the banding has gone.



Thinking about frame rates.

Once upon a time it was really simple. We made TV programmes and videos that would only ever be seen on TV screens. If you lived and worked in a PAL area you would produce programmes at 25fps. If you lived in an NTSC area, most likely 30fps. But today it’s not that simple. For a start the internet allows us to distribute our content globally, across borders. In addition PAL and NTSC only really apply to standard definition television as they are the way the SD signal is broadcast with a PAL frame being larger than an NTSC one and both use non-square pixels. With HD Pal and NTSC does not exist, both are 1280×720 or 1920×1080 and both use square pixels, the only difference between HD in a 50hz country and a 60hz country is the frame rate.

Today with HD we have many different frame rates to choose from. For film like motion we can use 23.98fps or 24fps. For fluid smooth motion we can use 50fps or 60fps. In between sits the familiar 25fps and 30fps (29.97fps) frame rates. Then there is also the option of using interlace or progressive scan. Which do you choose?

If you are producing a show for a broadcaster then normally the broadcaster will tell you which frame rate they need. But what about the rest of us?

There is no single “right” frame rate to use. A lot will depend on your particular application, but there are some things worth considering.

If you are producing content that will be viewed via the internet then you probably want to steer clear of interlace. Most modern TV’s and all computer monitors use progressive scan and the motion in interlaced content does not look good on progressive TVs and monitors. In addition most computer monitors run by default at 60hz. If you show content shot at 25fps or 50fps on a 60hz monitor it will stutter slightly as the computer repeats an uneven number of  frames to make 25fps fit into 60Hz. So you might want to think about shooting at 30fps or 60fps for smoother less stuttery motion.

24fps or 23.98fps will also stutter slightly on a 60hz computer screen, but the stutter is very even as 1 frame gets repeated in every 4 frames shown.  This is very similar to the “pull-up” that gets added to 24fps movies when shown on 30fps television, so it’s a kind of motion that many viewers are used to seeing anyway. Because it’s a regular stutter pattern it tends to be less noticeable in the irregular conversion from 25fps to 60hz. 25 just doesn’t fit into 60 in a nice even manner. Which brings me to another consideration – If you are looking for a one fits all standard then 24 or 23.98fps might be a wise choice. It works reasonably well via the internet on 60hz monitors. It can easily be converted to 30fps (29.97fps) using the pull-up for television and it’s not too difficult to convert to 25fps simply by speeding it up by 4% (many feature films are shown in 25fps countries simply by being sped up and a pitch shift added to the audio).

So, even if you live and work in a 25fps (Pal) area, depending on how your content will be distributed you might actually want to consider 24, 30 or 60fps for your productions. 25fps or 50fps looks great on a 50hz TV, but with the majority of non broadcast content being viewed on computers, laptops and tablets 24/30/60fps may be a better choice.

What about the “film look”? Well I think it’s obvious to say that 24p or 23.98p will be as close as you can get to the typical cadence and motion seen in most movies. But 25p also looks more or less the same. Even 30p has a hint of the judder that we see in a 24p movie, but 30p is a little smoother. 50p and 60p will give very smooth motion, so if you shoot sports or fast action and you want it to be smooth you may need to use 50/60p. But 50/60p files will be twice the size of 24/25 and 30p files in most cases, so then storage and streaming bandwidth have to be considered. It’s much easier to stream 24p than 60p.

For almost all of the things that I do I shoot at 23.98p, even though I live in a 50hz country. I find this gives me the best overall compatibility. It also means I have the smallest files sizes and the clips will normally stream pretty well. One day I will probably need to consider shooting everything at 60fps, but that seems to be some way off for now, HDR and higher resolutions seem to be what people want right now rather than higher frame rates.

Why do I always shoot at 800 EI (FS7 and F5)?

This is a question that comes up time and time again. I’ve been using the F5 and FS7 for almost 5 years. What I’ve discovered in that time is that the one thing that people notice more than anything from these cameras is noise if you get your exposure wrong. In addition it’s much harder to grade a noisy image than a clean one.
Lets take a look at a few key things about how we expose and how the F5/FS7 works (note the same principle applies to most log based cameras, the FS5 also benefits from being exposed brighter than the suggested base settings).
What in the image is important? What will your audience notice first? Mid-range, shadows or highlights?
I would suggest that most audiences first look at the mid range – faces, skin tones, building walls, plants etc. Next they will notice noise and grain or perhaps poor, muddy or murky shadows. The last thing they will notice is a few very brightly highlights such as specular reflections that might be clipped.
The old notion of protecting the highlights comes from traditional gamma curves with a knee or highlight roll off where everything brighter than a piece of white paper (90% white) is compressed into a very small recording range. As a result when shooting with conventional gamma curves ALL of the brighter parts of the image are compromised to some degree, typically showing a lack of contrast and texture, often showing some weird monotone colors. Log is not like that, there is no highlight roll off, so those brighter than white highlights are not compromised in the same way.
In the standard gammas at 0dB the PXW-FS7, like the PMW-F5 is rated at 800 ISO. This gives a good balance between noise and sensitivity. Footage shoot at 0dB/800ISO with the standard gammas or Hypergammas generally looks nice and clean with no obvious noise problems. However when we switch to log the native ISO rating of the cameras becomes 2000 ISO, so to expose “correctly” we need to stop the aperture down by 1.3 stops. This means that compared to 709 and HG1 to HG4, the sensor is being under exposed by 1.3 stops. Less light on the sensor will mean more noise in the final image. 1.3 stops is the equivalent of 9dB. Imagine how Rec709 looks if it is under exposed by 1.3 stops or has to have +9dB of gain added in. Well – thats what log at 2000 ISO will look like.
However log has lots of spare headroom and no highlight compression. So we can choose to expose brighter than the base ISO because pushing that white piece of paper brighter in exposure does not cause it to become compressed.
If you open the aperture back up by 1.3 stops you get back to where you would be with 709 in terms of noise and grain. This would be “rating” the camera at 800 ISO or using 800 EI. Rating the camera at 800EI you still have 4.7 stops of over exposure range, so the only things that will be clipped will in most cases be specular reflections or extreme highlights. There is no TV or monitor in existence that can show these properly, so no matter what you do, they will never be true to life. So don’t worry if you have some clipped highlights, ignore them. Bringing your exposure down to protect these is going to compromise the mid range and they will never look great anyway.
You should also be extremely cautious about ever using an EI higher that 2000. The camera is not becoming more sensitive, people are often misslead by high EI’s into thinking somehow they are capturing more than they really are. If you were to shoot at 4000 EI you will end up with footage 15dB noisier than if you were shooting the same scene using 709 at 800 ISO. That’s a lot of extra noise and you won’t necessarily appreciate just how noisy the footage will be while shooting looking at a small monitor or viewfinder.
I’ve been shooting with the F5 and then the FS7 for almost 5 years and I’ve never found a situation where I going to an EI higher than 800 would have resulted in a better end result. At the same time I’ve seen a lot of 2000 EI footage where noise in the mid range has been an issue, one particular example springs to mind of a high end car shoot where 2000 EI was used but the gloss and shine of the car bodywork is spoilt because it’s noisy, especially the darker coloured cars.
Of course this is just my opinion, based on my own experience, others may differ and the best thing you can do is test for yourself.

San Francisco/Bay Area Private Workshop, 4th of March, 2 places left.

I’m looking to fill the last 2 places on this intermediate to high level full day workshop. Please note: All participants signed up so far are seasoned pros with at least a decade of professional experience. Topics covered will be:

Scene Files and Paint Settings – Gamma Curves, Dynamic Range, Matrix and Color.
Gain and ISO, what do these really mean. Understanding the signal to noise ratio.
S-Log, S-Gamut and Exposure Indexing.
LUT’s and Looks, LUT creation and LUT use.
File handling and backup.
Grading introduction including color managed workflows such as ACES.
HDR – Introduction to HDR, what we need to know and how will it effect us.

This is a private workshop and there is a fee to attend. Please use the contact form if you are interested.

Notes on Timecode and Timecode Sync for cinematographers, part 2.

In the first part of this 2 part article we saw how at some frame rates timecode will drift relative to a real time clock (Click Here for part 1). As well as drifting relative to real time due to the way timecode can only count the actual whole frames recorded,  the internal clocks that govern the timecode generators in many devices may drift slightly over time.

For single camera operation this drift is rarely significant but as soon as you start using multiple cameras or recording sound separately to the camera, even very small differences of just a frame or two between each device can cause problems. A one frame error is enough to cause a visible lip sync error, by two frames the sync error is pretty obvious to most people.

So, very often we need to synchronise the timecode across multiple devices so that the audio timecode matches the camera timecode or multiple cameras all have the same timecode so that it’s easy to re-align everything in post production. Most professional video cameras will have a timecode in or timecode out connector and the simplest way to sync two cameras is to feed the timecode from one cameras timecode out to the other cameras timecode in. For this to work both cameras must be set to “Free Run” timecode.


This is the part that often gets overlooked. If you read the first part you should understand that when a video camera is recording the timecode is generated by counting the number of frames recorded. As a result the precise frame rate of the camera will determine how many frames are recorded in any given time period and as a result the timecode for that clip. When you press the record button to start a recording the cameras timecode will match any external timecode fed to the camera. But from that point forward until the end of the recording the timecode just counts the frames recorded and will ignore any external timecode.

So the only way to ensure 100% accurate timecode sync between multiple cameras or between a camera and some other external timecode source is by providing not only a common timecode source but also a sync source that is locked to the timecode. By feeding the camera sync that is locked to the timecode into the cameras genlock input the cameras frame rate will be locked to the master frame rate so you will not get any timecode drift.

It’s amazing how many people overlook the fact that a cameras timecode generator counts frames while recording, so if the cameras frame rate is a tiny bit off, even with an external timecode source it will drift. It’s only by synchronising the camera through sync and genlock that you can be sure to eliminate any timecode drift.


If you are recording sound remotely from the camera you need to keep the camera and audio recorders timecode in sync. The timecode in a camera is dependant on the actual frames recorded while the timecode on an audio recorder is often nothing more than a data or audio track that records the timecode signal. It is rarely locked to the recorders sampling or recording rate. Because of this the correct way to link the timecode in this scenario is from the camera to the recorder.

If you do it the other way around (which for some reason appears to be the most common way) you cannot be sure that you won’t get timecode drift unless the audio recorder is also sending sync to the cameras genlock input. Normally a small amount of drift will go un-noticed on shorter shots. The cameras timecode will re-sync with the external timecode when you stop recording, so the beginning of each shot will have the correct timecode. As a result you will normally get away with feeding timecode only from an audio recorder.  But on longer takes, say shooting a music event it can become a significant issue as the camera and recorder drift apart over longer takes.


As you should have learnt from part one, 23.98fps timecode can be particularly difficult to deal with as the timecode in a camera shooting at 23.98fps will always drift by 3.6 seconds an hour relative to real time. So be very, very careful if shooting 23.98fps but using an audio recorder that uses a real time clock. There is no way to satisfactorily sync a real time clock with a camera shooting 23.98fps. Over the course of a 1 minute clip you will see the timecode drift by over 1 frame. If you wish to do sync sound at 23.98fps you need to ensure your audio recorder supports either 23.98fps timecode or at a push Non Drop Frame 29.97fps timecode. You can only sync 23.98fps tmecode with 23.98fps timecode, but a free running, Non Drop Frame 29.97fps recorder should stay closer in sync than a real time clock.

If your audio recorder only has a real time clock I strongly suggest shooting at 24fps rather than 23.98fps where you can. 24fps is a whole number so 24fps timecode does not drift by 3.6 seconds per hour compared to real time. So any sync issues should be much reduced at 24fps compared to 23.98fps. If shooting 29.97fps (often mistakenly referred to as 30fps/60i) then you should use Drop Frame Timecode when working with recorders with a real time clock.


There are a few pro cameras that don’t have a dedicated timecode in or timecode out port. The very popular Sony PXW-FS7 does not have timecode in and can’t be genlocked unless you add the optional extension unit to the camera. For cameras such as these, if you need to record sync sound on a separate recorder one option is to record the timecode output from the audio recorder as an audio signal on one of the cameras audio tracks. Timecode recorded on an audio track like this will rarely line up perfectly with the cameras own internal timecode so it should never be used as the main timecode for the recorded video. But there are plenty of software tools that will allow you to read this timecode in post production so that you can use it to line up your audio recordings with the video recording. This isn’t an ideal solution, but it’s better than relying on two different clocks, one in the camera, one in the recorder possibly running at quite different rates.


If you have multiple cameras or audio recorders it may be possible to loop the time code (and hopefully sync too) from camera to camera, so that every device is connected. Another option is to use a single master timecode and sync source and hard wire every camera to that. The problem with either of these is that if the venue is large you need a lot of cable. Sometimes it simply isn’t possible to use cables to connect everything together so instead of cables we connect the cameras wirelessly.


Wireless timecode connections normally work OK. If you momentarily loose the wireless timecode link the cameras timecode clock will just keep counting the frames recorded without issue. But as we have already seen, for true drift free timecode lock we also need to synchronise the camera via genlock. Sending genlock wirelessly is not normally a good idea. Any interruption of the sync signal will cause the cameras frame rate to jitter and that’s really bad. In practice it is quite common to link the timecode of several devices wirelessly without sync. Again for shot takes this is often perfectly OK. The lack of sync however can be an issue on longer takes. A good example of this would be a music concert where it really is vital that all the cameras and recorders run in sync.

Companies such as Ambient have wireless timecode and sync devices where each of the sync boxes (lockit box) has it’s own very high precision, temperature compensated sync clock.  All the boxes then sync to one master device, should the wireless signal drop out the internal sync clocks will continue to provide both a genlock sync pulse and timecode that is so precise that you should not see any timecode or sync drift over several days.

If you missed part 1 you can find it by clicking here.

Notes on Timecode and Timecode Sync for cinematographers.

This is part 1 of two articles. In this article I will look at what timecode is and some common causes of timecode drift problems. In part 2 I will look at the correct way to synchronise timecode across multiple devices.

This is a subject that keeps cropping up from time to time. A lot of us camera operators don’t always understand the intricacies of timecode. If you live in a PAL/50Hz area and shoot at 25fps all the time you will have few problems. But start shooting at 24fps, 23.98 fps or start trying to sync different cameras or audio recorders and it can all get very complicated and very confusing very quickly.

So I’ve written these notes to try to help you out.


The timecode we normally encounter in the film and video world is simply a way to give every frame that we record a unique ID number based on the total number of frames recorded or the time of day.  It is a counter that counts whole frames. It can only count whole frames, it cannot count fractions of frames, as a result the highest accuracy is 1 frame. The timecode is normally displayed as Hour:Minute:Second:Frame in the following format



The two most common types of timecode used are “Record Run” and “Free Run”. Record run, as the name suggests only runs or counts up when the camera is recording. It is a cumulative frame count, which counts the total number of frames recorded. So if the first clip you record starts with the time code clock at 00:00:00:00 and runs for 10 seconds and 5 frames then the TC at the end of the clip will be 00:00:10:05. The first frame of the next clip you record will continue the count so will be 00:00:10:06 and so on. When you are not recording the timecode stops counting and does not increase.

With “Free Run” the timecode clock in the camera is always counting according to the frame rate the camera is set to. It is common to set the free run clock so that it matches the time of the day. Once you set the time in the timecode clock and enable “Free Run” the clock will start counting up whether you are recording or not.


In “Free Run” once you have set the timecode clock it will always count the number of frames recorded and in some cases this will actually cause the clock to drift away from the actual time of day.


An old problem is that in the USA and other NTSC areas the frame rate is a really odd frame rate, it’s 29.97fps (this came about to prevent problems with the color signal when color TV was introduced). Timecode can only count actual whole frames, so there is no way to account for the missing 0.03 frames in every second. As a result timecode running at 29.97fps runs slightly slower than a real time clock.

If the frame rate was actually 30fps in 1 hour there would be 108,000 frames. But at 29.97fps after one real time hour you will have only recorded  107,892 frames, the frame counter TC, won’t reach one hour for another 3.6 seconds.


To eliminate this 3.6 seconds per hour (relative to real time) timecode discrepancy in footage filmed at 29.97fps a special type of time code was developed called “Drop Frame Timecode“. Drop Frame Timecode (DF) works by: every minute, except each tenth minute, two timecode numbers are dropped from the timecode count. So there are some missing numbers in the timecode count but after exactly 1 real time hour the time code value will increment by 1 hour. No frames themselves are dropped, only numbers in the frame count.


Drop Frame Timecode is only ever used for material shot at  29.97fps, which includes 59.94i. (We will often incorrectly refer to this as 60i or 30fps – virtually all 30fps video these days is actually 29.97fps). If you are using “Rec Run” timecode you will almost never need to use Drop Frame as generally you will not by syncing with anything else.

If you are using 29.97fps  “Free Run” you should use Drop Frame (DF) when you want your timecode to stay in sync with a real time clock. An example would be shooting a long event or over several days where you want the timecode clock to match the time on your watch or the watch of an assistant that might be logging what you are shooting.

If you use 29.97fps Non Drop Frame  (NDF) your cameras timecode will drift relative to the actual time of day by a minute and a half each day. If you are timecode syncing multiple cameras or devices it is vital that they are all using the same type of timecode, mixing DF and NDF will cause all kinds of problems.

It’s worth noting that many lower cost portable audio recorders that record a “timecode” don’t actually record true timecode. Instead they record a timestamp based on a real time clock. So if you record on the portable recorder for lets say 2 hours and then try to sync the 1 hour point (01:00:00:00 Clock Time) with a camera recording 29.97fps NDF timecode using the 1 hour timecode number (01:00:00:00 NDF Timecode) they will be out of sync by 3.6 seconds. So this would be a situation where it would be preferable to use DF timecode in the camera as the cameras timecode will match the real time clock of the external recorder.

WHAT ABOUT 23.98fps?

Now you are entering a whole world of timecode pain!!

23.98fps is a bit of a oddball standard that came about from fitting 24fps films into the NTSC 29.97fps frame rate. It doesn’t have anything to do with pull up, it’s just that as NTSC TV runs at 29.97fps rather than true 30fps movies are sped up by 0.1% to fit in 29.97fps.

Now 23.98fps exists as a standalone format. In theory there is still a requirement for Drop Frame timecode as you can’t have 0.02 frames in a timecode frame count, each frame must have a whole number. Then after a given number of frames you go to the next second in the count. With 23.98fps we count 24 whole frames and the increment the timecode count by one second, so once again there is a discrepancy between real time and the timecode count of 3.6 seconds per hour. The time on a camera running at 23.98fps will run fast compared to a real time clock.  Unlike 29.97fps there is no Drop Frame (DF) standard for 23.98, it’s always treated as a 24fps count (TC counts 24 frames, then adds 1 to the second count), this is because there  is no nice way to adjust the count and make it fit real time as there is with 29.97fps. No matter how you do the math or how many frames you drop there would always be a fraction of a frame left over.

So 23.98fps does not have a DF mode. This means that after 1 hour of real time the timecode count on a camera shooting at 23.98 fps will be 00:01:03:14. If you set the camera to “Free Run” the timecode will inevitably drift relative to real time, again over the course of a day the camera will be fast by almost one and a half minutes compared to a real time clock or any other device using either drop frame timecode, 24fps or 25fps.

So, as I said earlier 23.98fps timecode can be painful to deal with.

24fps timecode does not have this problem as there are exactly 24 frames in every second, so a video camera shooting at 24fps should not see any significant timecode drift or loss of timecode sync compared to a real time clock.

It’s worth considering here the problem of shooting sync sound (where sound is recorded externally on a remote sound recorder). If your sound recorder does not have 23.98fps timecode the timecode  will drift relative to a camera shooting at 23.98fps. If your sound recorder only has a real time timecode clock you might need to consider shooting at 24fps instead of 23.98fps to help keep the audio and picture time codes in sync. Many older audio recorders designed for use alongside film cameras can only do 24fps timecode.

In part 2 I will look at the correct way to synchronise timecode across multiple devices.



Incorrect Lumetri Scope Scales and incorrect S-Log range scaling in Adobe Premiere.

UPDATE: It appears that Adobe may have now addressed this. Luma and YC scopes now show the same levels, not different ones and the scaling of S-Log XAVC. signals now appears to be correct.


This came up as the result of a discussion on the FS5 shooters group on Facebook. An FS5 user shooting S-log2 was very confused by what he was seeing on the scopes in Adobe Premiere. Having looked into this further myself, I’m not surprised he was confused because it’s also confused me as there is some very strange behaviour with S-Log2 XAVC material.


THIS IS THE “LUMA” Scope, I suggest you don’t use it! Look at the scale on the left side of the scope, it appears to be a % scale, not unlike the % scale we are all used to working with in the video world. In the video world 100% would be the maximum limit for broadcast TV, 90% would be white and the absoulte maximum recording level would be 109%. These % (IRE) levels have very specific data or code values. For luma, 100IRE has a code value of 940 in 10 bit or 235 in 8 bit. Then look at the scale on the right side of the luma scope. This appears to be an 8 bit code value scale, after all it has those key values of 128, 255 etc.

Lumetri-code-values-e1480938951719 Incorrect Lumetri Scope Scales and incorrect S-Log range scaling in Adobe Premiere.
100% is not Code Value 235 as you would normally expect (Lumtri scopes).

Now look again at the above screen grab of the lumetri luma scope in Premiere 2017 – V11. On the left is what appears to be that familiar % scale. But go to 100% and follow the line across to where the code values are. It appears that on these scopes 100% means code value 255, this is not what anyone working in broadcast or TV would expect because normally code value 255 means 109.5%.

I suggest you use the YC waveform display instead.

Y-scope-slog2-e1480948691356 Incorrect Lumetri Scope Scales and incorrect S-Log range scaling in Adobe Premiere.
Lumetri YC Scope showing S-log2

The YC waveform shown on the above screen capture is of an S-Log2 frame. If you go by the % scale it suggests that this recording has a peak level of only 98% when in fact the recording actually goes to 107%.

But here’s where it gets even stranger. Look at the below screen capture of another waveform display.

Y-Scope-cinegamma1-e1480948783225 Incorrect Lumetri Scope Scales and incorrect S-Log range scaling in Adobe Premiere.
Lumetri YC scope and Cinegamma 1

So what is going on here? The above is a screen grab of Cinegamma 1 recorded in UHD using 8 bit XAVC-L. It goes all the way up to 109% which is the correct peak level for Cinegamma 1. So why does the S-Log2 recording only reach 98% but the Cinegamma recording, recorded moments later using the same codec reach 109%.  This is a value 10% higher than S-Log2 and I know that the Cinegammas cannot record at a level 10% greater than S-Log2 (the true difference is only about 2%).

Lets now compare the difference between how Premiere and Resolve handle these clips. The screen grab below shows the S-Log2 and Cinegamma 1 recordings side by side as handled in Adobe Premiere. On the left is the S-Log2, right Cinegamma1. Look at the very large difference in the peak recording levels. I do not expect to see this, there should only be a very small difference.

Y-scope-side-by-side-e1480949026488 Incorrect Lumetri Scope Scales and incorrect S-Log range scaling in Adobe Premiere.
Lumetri YC scope with XAVC S-Log2 on the left and XAVC Cinegamma 1 on the right.

Now lets look at exactly the same clips in DaVinci Resolve. Note how much smaller the difference in the peak levels is. This is what I would expect to see as S-Log2 gets to around 107% and Cinegamma 1 reaches 109%, only a very small difference. Resolve is handling the files correctly, Premiere is not. For reference to convert 8 bit code values to 10 bit just multiply the 8 bit value by 4. So 100IRE which is CV235 in 8 bit is CV940 in 10 bit.

resolve-scopes-e1480937970843 Incorrect Lumetri Scope Scales and incorrect S-Log range scaling in Adobe Premiere.
S-log2 on the left, Cinegamma 1 on the right. Notice the very small difference in peak levels. This is expected and correct.

So, until I get to the bottom of this all I can say is be very, very careful and don’t use the “Luma” scope, use the YC scope if you want to know your code values.  It also appears that Premiere scales the code values of S-Log recordings differently to normal gammas.

Additionally: Record exactly the same S-Log2 or S-Log3 image using XAVC internally in the camera and at the same time record a ProRes version on an external recorder. Bring both of these clips, which are actually recorded using exactly the same levels into Premiere and Premiere handles them differently. The XAVC squashed into a reduced range while the ProRes fills the larger range.

Y-Scope-SL2-Prores-e1480949229973 Incorrect Lumetri Scope Scales and incorrect S-Log range scaling in Adobe Premiere.
Lumetri YC scope and a ProRes S-Log2 recording. Note how this goes all the way to 107%.

This has huge implications if you use LUT’s!!!!

The same LUT will result in a very different looking image from the XAVC and PRoRes material. There should not be a difference, but there is and it’s big. So this isn’t just a scopes issue, it’s an internal signal handling issue.

I’ve always preferred doing my color grading in a dedicated grading package with external scopes. It’s stuff like this that reminds me of why I prefer to work that way. I always end up with a better end result when I grade in Resolve compared to Premiere/Lumetri.

As I learn more about this I will post a new article. Use the subscribe button on the left to subscribe to the blog to be notified of new posts.

Sony Memory Media Utility.

If you use Sony’s SXS cards or USB Hard Drives, Sony have a utility that allows you to check the status of your media and correctly format the media. This is particularly useful for reading the number of cycles your SXS card has reached.

The utility can also copy SXS cards to multiple destinations for simultaneous backups of your content. You can download the utility for free via the link below.

Big Update for Sony Raw Viewer.

rawviewer-01-large-e1480363307344 Big Update for Sony Raw Viewer.
Sony’s Raw Viewer for raw and X-OCN file manipulation.

Sony’s raw viewer is an application that has just quietly rumbled away in the background. It’s never been a headline app, just one of those useful tools for viewing or transcoding Sony’s raw material. I’m quite sure that the majority of users of Sony’s raw material do their raw grading and processing in something other than raw viewer.

But this new version (2.3) really needs to be taken very seriously.

Better Quality Images.

For a start Sony have always had the best de-bayer algorithms for their raw content. If you de-bayer Sony raw in Resolve and compare it to the output from previous versions of Raw Viewer, the raw viewer content always looked just that little bit cleaner. The latest versions of Raw Viewer are even better as new and improved algorithms have been included! It might not render as fast, but it does look very nice and can certainly be worth using for any “problem” footage.

Class 480 XAVC and X-OCN.

Raw Viewer version 2.3 adds new export formats and support for Sony’s X-OCN files. You can now export to both XAVC class 480 and class 300, 10 or 12bit ProRes (HD only unfortunately), DPX and SStP.  XAVC Class 480 is a new higher quality version of XAVC-I that could be used as a ProResHQ replacement in many instances.

Improved Image Processing.

Color grading is now easier than ever thanks to support for Tangent Wave tracker ball control panels along with new grading tools such as Tone Curve control. There is support for EDL’s and batch processing with all kind of process queue options allowing you to prioritise your renders. Although Raw Viewer doesn’t have the power of a full grading package it is very useful for dealing with problem shots as the higher quality de-bayer provides a cleaner image with fewer artefacts. You can always take advantage of this by transcoding from raw to 16 bit DPX or Open EXR so that the high quality de-bayer takes place in Raw Viewer and then do the actual grading in your chosen grading software.

HDR and Rec.2100

If you are producing HDR content version 2.3 also adds support for the PQ and HLG gamma curves and Rec.2100 It also now includes HDR waveform displays. You can use Raw Viewer to create HDR LUT’s too.

So all-in-all Raw Viewer has become a very powerful tool for Sony’s raw and XOCN content that can bring a noticeable improvement in image quality compared to de-bayering in many of the more commonly used grading packages.

Download Link for Sony Raw Viewer:


Latest Apple Pro Video Formats Update Adds MXF Playback.

If you are running the latest Mac Sierra OS the recent Pro Video Formats update, version 2.0.5 adds the ability to play back MXF OP1a files in Quick Time Player without the need to transcode.

mxf-playback-e1479727374478 Latest Apple Pro Video Formats Update Adds MXF Playback.
Direct preview of an XAVC MXF file in the finder of OS Sierra.

You can also preview MXF files in the finder window directly! This is a big deal and very welcome, finally you don’t need special software to play back files wrapped in one of the most commonly used professional media wrappers. Of course you must have the codec installed on your computer, it won’t play a file you don’t have the codec for, but XAVC, ProRes and many other pro codecs are include in the update.

At the moment I am able to play back most MXF files including most XAVC and ProRes MXF’s. However some of my XAVC MXF’s are showing up as audio only files. I can still play back these files with 3rd party software, there is no change there. But for some reason I can’t play back every XAVC MXF file directly in Quicktime Player, so play as audio only. I’m not sure why some files are fine and others are not, but this is certainly a step in the right direction. Why it’s taken so long to make this possible I don’t really know, although I suspect it is now possible due to changes in the core Quicktime components of OS Sierra.  You can apply this same Video Formats update to earlier OS’s but don’t gain the MXF playback.

Thanks to reader Mark for the heads-up!