Lightweight Tripod Help Please.

Hello all.

I really need to get an ultra light tripod for my travels. I love my Vinten 5AS and 100AS with CF legs, these are great, but they are around 6kg/8kg and possibly more of a bind is the length of the legs when collapsed. I really need something a bit easier to travel with, especially for my arctic expeditions and overseas workshops. On my recent Asia trip I was typically around 5kg over my baggage allowance on many flights, partly because of the weight of the tripod but also because of the size of the case required to transport it. In addition a big broadcast tripod does tend to catch the attention of customs officials. So I need something that will work with a bare bones FS700 or F3 (3-4kg payload). I realise that cutting back to the minimum on the tripod will effect my ability to achieve stable shots and smooth pans, but most of the shots I do are wide angle.

I’ve looked at a few options. Maybe a Manfrotto 504 head with the single tube CF legs, or one of the Miller Solo systems. I don’t have a big budget for this so perhaps I’ll just get a set of single tube 75mm bowl legs to use with my Vinten 5AS head. So what do you guys use, what are your recommendations? Please leave a comment with your suggestions.

Singapore by Night. Shot with FS700, PMW-F3 and NEX5N

This is a video of Singapore I shot while at Broadcast Asia. I used a variety of Sony cameras to shoot this. The principle camera was a Sony FS700, used for the slow mo at the beginning and end as well as many of the time-lapse shots which were done by shooting using S&Q mode at 1 frame per second. Also used was a Sony PMW-F3 in frame interval mode and a Sony NEX5 stills camera triggered with a Gentled time-lapse controller.

 

Why Nailing Your Mid Range Will Make Post Production Happy. Even with Cingammas and Hypergammas.

One of the concepts that’s sometimes hard to understand is why mid range exposure is so critical with most video cameras, even cameras with extended dynamic range. Cameras that use Cinegammas, Hypergammas  may give you great dynamic range and extra latitude but it’s still vital that you get your mid range exposed correctly. In many cases, the greater you cameras ability to capture a wide dynamic range the more critical mid range exposure becomes. I’ve often heard comments from users of XDCAM cameras complaining that they find it harder to work with cinegammas and hypergammas than the standard REC-709 gamma.
So why is this, it seams counter intuitive, surely a greater dynamic range makes exposure more forgiving?

Typical Standard Gamma

First lets take a look at a standard gamma curve. These graphs are not accurate, just thrown together to illustrate the point. The standard gamma for HD, REC-709 can be considered to be near linear. Certainly in terms of “what you see is what you get” the idea behind REC-709 is that if the camera is set to 709 and the TV or monitor is 709 compliant then we will get a linear 1:1 reproduction of the real world. However REC-709 is based on the gamma curves used at the very beginnings of television broadcasting where TV’s and cameras had very limited dynamic range. True REC-709 only allows for about 6 stops of dynamic range and as a result the version of REC-709 used in most video cameras is tweaked somewhat to allow a greater dynamic range in the region of 8 to 10 stops while still producing a pleasing image on most TV’s. Another way of increasing dynamic range is to introduce some form of signal compression. The simplest form of this in common use is the cameras knee circuit. This simply takes anything above a certain brightness level (typically between 80 and 95%) and compresses it. We normal get away with this compression because it’s only affecting highlights like clouds in a bright sky or a bright window or lamp in the shot. Our own visual system is tuned primarily to mid tones, faces, plants and things like that so we don’t tend to find highlight compression overly obtrusive.
When considering your post production workflow and grading in particular, it’s important to remember that in most cases whenever anything is compressed then some of the original data is being discarded. In addition if the amount of compression is non-linear (increases or decreases with amplitude) then when we add a linear function to that, like adjusting the signal gain the non-linearity is also increased.
Based on these assumptions, you should be able to understand that anything exposed in the linear part of a gamma curve will grade very well because there is no extra compression and gain adjustments will behave as expected. Now if you look at the graph of a typical standard gamma curve (as above) you can see that everything below the knee point is pretty linear, so anything exposed in this range will grade easily and well (assuming it isn’t actually overexposed). For this reason standard gamma can be very forgiving to small over exposure problems as a slightly bright face should still be in the linear part of the curve. However overexpose to the point where the face starts to enter the knee area and all is lost, you’ll never make it look natural.

Typical Cinegamma or Hypergamma

Now look at the curve for a typical Cinegamma or Hypergamma. You can see that this curve starts to become more curved and less linear much earlier than a standard gamma. This is how the extra latitude is gained. Compression is used to allow the camera to record a greater brightness range. This extra compression though comes at a price and that is linearity. The further up the exposure range you go the less linear the response (it’s actually becoming logarithmic). The result is that even though you have more dynamic range, if you do overexpose faces and skin tones by even just a small amount they will start to creep into the non linear part of the curve and this makes them harder to grade naturally. You may be less likely to get those ugly blown out highlights on a shiny face typical of video knee compression with cine/hypergammas, but you must still be very careful not to overexpose.

So there you have it. Greater dynamic range does not necessarily equate to more exposure tolerance. In fact it’s often the opposite. You might get better highlight handling, but you may find you need to be even more careful with how you expose. As we go forwards (or sideways at least) and linear raw becomes more common place then you will be able to shift you mid tone exposure up and down with a lot more flexibility as with a linear raw camera the last stop of exposure has the same linearity as the first, so in theory your mid tones can sit anywhere in the exposure range. Sony’s F65 is a great example of this. It has 14 stops of linear dynamic range. A face lit with a 3 stop range could be placed in stops 11-14 and would grade down to wherever you want just perfectly.

How important is raw?

One of the key benefits of a raw workflow is that normally you will be working at a higher bit depth, at least 12 bit if not 14 bit or 16 bit. This in turn allows the use of linear capture as opposed to the log capture normally associated with conventional video.

Don’t get me wrong, log capture and recording (even things like hypergammas and cinegammas are closer to log than linear) is very good and works remarkably well. But it is limited as it compresses highlight information. Each extra stop of over exposure with a linear recording will contain twice as much data as the previous, while with log each stop contains the same amount of data, so as a result each brighter stop only has half as much information as the previous. Log does allow us great scope when it comes to grading and post production image manipulation, but the higher up the exposure range you go, the less data you have to work with, so how much you can manipulate the image decreases with brightness. As our own visual system is tuned for mid tones this log behaviour goes largely un-noticed. But as modern sensors achieve greater and greater dynamic ranges log starts to struggle while linear copes much better.
It’s not until you try linear raw with a camera like the Alexa or F65 that you realise just how forgiving it is. In log mode the Alexa (and other log cameras like the F3) need to be exposed accurately. Over expose and you risk not only your highlights blowing out but also it becomes harder to get good looking skin tones as these may be up in the more compressed parts of the curve. However with linear, it doesn’t really matter if faces are higher up the range, jus as long as they are not actually at sensor overload.
When you shoot with a log camera it must be treated like any other conventional video camera. Exposure must be correct, you need to watch and protect you highlights, expose to the left etc. A camera shooting raw behaves much more like a film camera, you can afford to push the exposure higher if you want less noise, just like film.

But linear raw comes at a cost, mainly a time and storage cost. We have become very used to the simplicity of working with video. Modern file based workflows are fast and efficient. Raw needs more work, more processing, more storage (compared to compressed at least). But computers are getting faster, storage is getting cheaper. Right now I believe that raw is only going to be used by those that really do need and want the very best flexibility in post production while log will become more and more common for episodic and documentary production. But, the time will come when we can handle raw quickly and easily and then perhaps we will look back at legacy codecs and wonder how we managed. Although saying that, while we still broadcast and distribute programmes using backwards compatible legacy gamma with it restricted dynamic range for display on devices with only 6 stops of display latitude, a general shift to raw with all it’s extra overheads may never happen.

Zacuto Revenge of the Great Camera Shootout.

I spent some time today in Soho, London watching the latest Zacuto camera shootout. It was really interesting and quite enlightening. I don’t want to go into to many details here as it may spoil it for those of you still waiting to see the results. But what I will say is that Steve Weiss certainly achieved what he set out to do and that is to question what’s more important, the camera, the operator or something else and whether the camera makes the difference between a good movie and a bad one.
First we were shown footage from each of the cameras tested, shot under matching lighting. You could clearly see differences between each camera, as you would expect. The majority of the cameras were however remarkably similar. Maybe one would have better dynamic range, maybe another would have better colour. Next we were shown a blind screening of each camera where we did not know which camera was which. A letter from A to I was assigned to each camera. For these shots the DoP responsible for the camera was allowed to tweak the lighting to get the most from his or her camera. Then the DoP was allowed some time in the grading suite to do pretty much whatever they wanted to make the camera shine.
The discussion at the end of this set of clips was very interesting. One of the main conclusions drawn was that as much as assessing the actual look of the camera we were also assessing the DoP’s artistic interpretation of what made a good shot. Some clearly favoured highlights, some shadows. It was clear to us all that in the right hands almost all of the cameras were capable of producing great looking pictures in this controlled environment (would be interesting to see a less controlled scenario). Each person at the screening was given a card so they could list their top 5 cameras and most of us were asked to name the worst. There was generally a feeling that of the 9 cameras there were 3 or 4 that most of us liked the most, a couple that were not liked at all and the remaining sat in the middle as perfectly useable but maybe not quite in the same league as the top 4. Even so they were all remarkably close.
So from this I draw some interesting conclusions. The current large sensor cameras are all pretty good. Lighting and careful grading can overcome or at least mask most of any specific shortfalls. The general public audience would be hard pushed to tell.
Adding to this though I would say that one of the cameras that was quite weak in the reference test, but did look so much better in the DoP lit test required a lot more work in extra lighting and grading to get it that way, so obviously there are advantages to be had in having a higher performing camera, but also a good DoP makes all the difference.
There were some definite surprises in the cameras that were liked. One of the higher end cameras was not liked as much as expected and this surprised everyone. An old favourite also failed to perform as expected. When I watched the blind test I scored each camera out of 10. My top camera scored 8, second best was 7.5, third 7, forth 6. So there was very little between my top 3, in fact I really struggled choosing between F and A. My top 5 were F, A, H, C and then E. If you want to know which is which you will have to go to a screening or wait till the online video comes out.

Single Sensor Cameras: Pixel count is not the same as resolution!

Oh I get fed up with this. Just came across a product manager claiming that the resolution of his bayer sensor equipped camera was the same as the horizontal pixel count. Come on guys, know your products, know what your talking about. With a single chip camera the resolution will always be lower than the pixel count. This is pretty basic stuff. With a bayer sensor the resolution is at best 0.8 x the horizontal pixel count. But manufacturers like to pull the wool over the customers eyes spouting erroneous claims that the resolution is the same as the pixel count.

If you want to call your camera 5k, 4k or 2.5k that’s fine, but don’t claim the resolution is 2.5k when the camera only has 2.4k of active pixels on a 2.5k pixel wide sensor. It’s impossible and it’s incorrect and I’m not even going to go into how much lower the diagonal and colour resolution is with bayer.
Rant over.

Bottoms Up! New Base Plate Assembly for the PMW-F3 from Transvideo.

Transvideo base plate for the PMW-F3

A package arrived in the mail from Transvideo the other day. In it was one of their rather nice base plates for the PMW-F3. This plate isn’t simply a plate that it is attached to the bottom of the camera. It is in fact a complete replacement for the bottom end of the PMW-F3. Transvideo are best known for their superb high end monitors, robust, built to last monitors you often find on movie sets as they they offer a range of highly accurate calibration tools and fully calibrated displays not found on many lower cost monitors. In addition Transvideo’s 3D monitors are the monitors of choice for many 3D productions and stereographers as they offer special monitoring options that allow for very accurate measurement of 3D offsets and geometry.  This new base plate is a bit of a departure from Transvideo’s normal product lines. I suspect it’s come about because Transvideo’s 3D expertise led them to realise that one of the PMW-F3’s biggest issues for 3D is that the standard base plate isn’t particularly stable which can adversely affect alignment when used on a 3D rig.

Side view of the Transvideo base plate.

This is a problem not only for 3D but also for use with long and heavy lenses as the camera can wobble and flex on the tripod. The two 1/4″ threads on the F3 are far from ideal and the third thread at the back of the camera is offset from centre making it hard to use. By replacing the original very thin base plate of the camera ( it is is really, really thin) with this much more robust base plate you spread the loads imparted on the tripod mounting points across the entire bottom end of the internal chassis of the F3, not just the 4 teeny tiny screws that hold the sony tripod mount in place. Fitting is very easy, 8 small screws are un-done to remove the original Sony base panel, which simply lifts off and then the new Transvideo plate, complete with beautifully CNC machined cooling slots simply attaches in it’s place. Now my F3 has a perfectly flat base with both 1/4″ and 3/8″ threads (hooray!!) as well as a large number of M4 threads towards the outside. Now I can fit standard Arri accessories without having to fudge together different plates and screws to make them fit.

Rear view showing machined cooling vent.

Frankly this is how Sony should have done this in the first place, but well done to Transvideo, now my F3 is really starting to feel like a proper camera. The only very minor down side is that you loose your serial number plate as this is attached to the original Sony part. The fit is superb and it looks great too. The list price is €265.00. 10/10.

As well as the base plate I also received a little finger tab that attaches to the Sony PL mount. this little wing tab makes it much easier to remove and attach PL mount lenses as you can grip the lens with one hand and push the tab with you thumb to release the locking ring. It’s only a small thing but it makes the F3’s PL mount much more user friendly.

For more info on Transvideo products, click here.

 

Calibrating your viewfinder or LCD.

One of the most important things to do before you shoot anything is to make sure that any monitors, viewfinders or LCD panels are accurately calibrated. The majority of modern HD cameras have built in colour bars and these are ideal for checking your monitor. On most Sony cameras you have SMPTE ARIB colour bars like the ones in the image here. Note that I have raised the black level in the image so that you can see some of the key features more clearly. If your using a LCD or OLED monitor connected via HDSDI or HDMI then the main adjustments you will have are for Contrast, Brightness and Saturation.

First set up the monitor or viewfinder so that the 100% white square is shown as peak white on the monitor. This is done by increasing the contrast control until the white box stops getting brighter on the screen. Once it reaches maximum brightness, back the contrast level down until you can just perceive the tiniest of brightness changes on the screen.

Once this is set you now use the pluge bars to set up the black level. The pluge bars are the narrow near black bars that I’ve marked as -2% +2% and +4% in the picture they are each separated by black. The -2% bar is blacker than black so we should not be able to see this. Using the brightness control adjust the screen so that you can’t see the -2% bar but can just see the +2% bar. The 4% bar should also be visible separated from the 2% bar by black.

Color is harder to set accurately. Looking at the bars, the main upper bars are 75% bars so these are fully saturated, but only at 75% luma. The 4 coloured boxes, 2 on each side, two thirds of the way down the pattern are 100% fully saturated boxes. Using the outer 100% boxes increase the saturation or colour level until the color vibrance of the outer boxes stops increasing, then back the level down again until you just perceive the color decreasing. I find this easiest to see with the blue box.

Now you should have good, well saturated looking bars on you monitor or LCD and provided it is of reasonable quality it should be calibrated adequately well for judging exposure.

I find that on an EX or F3 the LCD panel ends up with the contrast at zero, colour at zero and brightness at about +28 on most cameras.

S-Log, Latitude, Dynamic Range and EI S-log. Or how to modify your exposure range with EI S-Log

The big issue most people have when working with log and exposing mid grey at 38 is that when you look at it on a standard monitor without any lookup tables it looks underexposed. The assumption therefore is that it is underexposed or in some way too dark to ever look right, because that’s what people used to working with conventional gammas have become programmed to believe over many years from their experience with conventional gammas.

So, for confidence you add a lookup table which converts the log to a Rec-709 type gamma and now the image looks brighter, but as it now has to fit within Rec-709 space we have lost either some of our high end or low end so we are no longer seeing the full range of the captured image so highlights may be blown out or blacks may be crushed.
It’s important for people to understand the concept of gamma and colour space and how the only way to truly see what a camera (any camera) is capturing is to use a monitor that has the same gamma and colour space. Generally speaking lookup tables don’t help as they will be taking a signal with a large range and manipulating it to fit in a small range and when you do that, something has to be discarded. If you were to take an F3 set to S-log and expose mid grey at 38 and show that on one of the nice new Sony E170 series monitors that have S-log gamma and place that next to another F3 with Rec-709 shooting mig grey at 45% and a similar but conventional 709 monitor the lower and mid range exposures would be near identical and the S-log images would not look under exposed or flat. The S-log images however would show an extra 2 stops of dynamic range.

Furthermore it has to be remembered that log is log, it is not linear. Because of its non linear nature, less and less brightness information is getting recorded as you go up the brightness range. As our own visual system is tuned to be most accute in the mid ranges this is normally fine provide you expose correctly putting mid tones in the more linear, lower parts of the S-log curve. Start putting faces to high up the S-log curve and it gets progressively harder to get a natural look after grading. This is where I think a lot of people new to log stumble. They don’t have the confidence to expose faces at what looks like a couple of stops under where they would with a standard gamma, so they start bringing up the exposure closer to where they would with standard gamma and then have a really hard time getting faces to look natural in the grade. Remember that the nominal S-Log value for white is 68 IRE. Part of the reason for this is that above about 70 IRE the amount of compression being applied by log is getting pretty extreme. While there is some wriggle room to push your exposure above or below the nominal mid grey at 38 it’s not as big as you might expect, especially dealing with natural tones and overexposure.

If you do want to shift your middle grey point this is where the EI S-log function and a light meter comes into it’s own, it’s what it’s designed for.

First something to understand about conventional camera gain, dynamic range and latitude. The latitude and sensitivity of the F3 is governed by the latitude and sensitivity of the sensor, which is a little under 13 stops. Different amounts of gain or different ISO’s don’t alter the sensors latitude, nor do they alter the actual sensitivity, only the amount of signal amplification. Increasing the camera gain will reduce the cameras output dynamic range as something that is 100 IRE at 800 ISO would go into clipping if the actual camera gain was increased by 6db (taking the ISO to 1600) but the darkest object the camera can actually detect remains the same. Dark objects may appear brighter, but there is still a finite limit to how dark an object the camera can actually see and this is governed by the sensor and the sensors noise floor.

EI (Exposure Index) shooting works differently, whether it’s with the F3, F65, Red or Alexa. Let’s consider how it works with the PMW-F3. In EI S-Log mode the camera always actually outputs at 800 ISO from the A/B outputs. It is assumed that if your working with S-Log you will be recording using an external 10 bit recorder connected to the A/B outputs. 422 is OK, but you really, really need 10 bit for EI S-Log. At 800 ISO you have 6.5 stops of over exposure and 6.5 under when you shoot mid grey at 38 or expose conventionally with a light meter.
Now what happens when you set the camera to EI 1600? Understand that the camera will still output at 800 ISO over the A/B outputs to your external recorder, but also note that 6db gain (1 stop) is added to the monitor output and what you see on the LCD screen, so the monitor out and LCD image get brighter. As the cameras metering systems (zebras, spot meter, histogram) measure the signal on the monitor side these are also now offset by +6db or + 1 stop.
As the camera is set to EI 1600 we set our light meter to 1600 ISO. If we make no change to our lighting the light meter would tell us to stop down by one stop, compared to our original 800 ISO exposure.
Alternately, looking at the camera, when you switch on EI 1600 the picture gets brighter, your mid grey card would also become brighter by one stop, so If we use the cameras spot meter to expose our grey card at 38 again we would need to stop down the iris by one stop to return the grey card to 38 IRE (for the same light levels as we used for 800). So either way, whether exposing with a light meter or exposing using the cameras built in metering, when you go from EI 800 to EI 1600 for the correct exposure (under the same lighting) you would stop down the iris by one stop.
Hope those new to this are still with me at this point!
Because the cameras A/B output is still operating at 800 ISO and you have stopped down by one stop as that what the light meter or camera metering told you to do because they are operating at EI 1600, the A/B output gets darker by one stop. Because you have shifted the actual recorded output down by one stop you have altered you exposure range from the original +/- 6.5 stops to + 7.5 stops, -5.5 stops. So you can see that when working at EI 1600 the dynamic range now becomes + 7.5 stops and -5.5 stops. Go to EI 3200 and the dynamic range becomes +8.5 stops and -4.5 stops.
So EI S-log gives you a great way of shifting your dynamic range centre while giving you consistent looking exposure and a reasonable approximation of how your noise levels are changing as you shift your exposure up and down within the cameras dynamic range.
EI S-Log doesn’t go below 800 because shifting the dynamic range up the exposure range is less beneficial. Lets pretend you have an EI 400 setting. If you did use it, you would be opening up the iris by one stop, so your range becomes +5.5 and -7.5 stops compared to your mid grey or light metered exposure. So you are working with reduced headroom and you are pushing your mid range up into the more highly compressed part of the curve which is less desirable. I believe this is why the option is not given on the F3.