Category Archives: Venice

Is This The Age Of The Small Camera Part 2

This is part 2 of my 2 part look at whether small cameras such as a Sony FX3 or A1 really can replace full size cinema cameras.

For this part of the article to make sense you will want to watch the YouTube clips that are linked here full screen at at the highest possible quality settings, Preferably 4K. Please don”t cheat, watch them in the order they are presented as I hope this will allow you to understand the points I am trying to make better.

Also, in the videos I have not put the different cameras that were tested side by side. You may ask why – well it’s because if you do watch a video online or a movie in a cinema you don’t see different cameras side by side on the same screen at the same time. A big point of all of this is that we are now at a place where the quality of even the smallest and cheapest  large sensor camera is likely going to be good enough to make a movie. It’s not necessarily a case of is camera A better than camera B, but the question is will the audience know or care which camera you used. There are 5 cameras and I have labelled them A through to E.

The footage presented here was captured during a workshop I did for Sony at Garage Studios in Dubai (if you need a studio space in Dubai they have some great low budget options). We weren’t doing carefully orchestrated  camera tests, but I did get the chance to quickly capture some side by side content.

So lets get into it.

THE FINAL GRADE:

In many regards I think this is the most important clip as this is how the audience would see the 5 cameras. It represents how they might look at the end of a production. I graded the cameras using ACES in DaVinci Resolve. 

Why ACES? Well, the whole point of ACES is to neutralise any specific camera “look”.  The ACES input transform takes the cameras footage and converts it to a neutral look that is meant to represent the scene as it actually was but with a film like highlight roll off added. From here the idea is that you can apply the same grade to almost any camera and the end result should look more or less the same. The look of different cameras is largely a result of differences in the electronic processing of the image in post production rather than large differences in the sensors. Most modern sensors capture a broadly similar range of colours with broadly similar dynamic range. So, provided you know the what recording levels represent what colour in the scene, it is pretty easy to make any camera look like any other, which is what ACES does.

The footage captured here was captured during a workshop, we weren’t specifically testing the different cameras in great depth. For the workshop the aim was to simply show how any of these cameras could work together. For simplicity and speed I manually set each camera to 5600K and as a result of the inevitable variations you get between different cameras, how each is calibrated and how each applies the white balance settings there were differences between in the  colour balance of each camera.

To neutralise these white balance differences the grading process started by using the colour chart to equalise the images from each camera using the “match” function in DaVinci Resolve. Then each camera has exactly the same grade applied – there are no grading differences, they are all graded in the same way.

Below are frame grabs from each camera with a slightly different grade to the video clips, again, they all look more or less the same.

A-graded_1.1.11-600x316 Is This The Age Of The Small Camera Part 2
The graded image from camera A. Click on the image to view the full resolution image.

 

B-graded_1.2.1-600x316 Is This The Age Of The Small Camera Part 2
The graded image from camera B. Click on the image to view the full resolution image.

 

C-graded_1.3.4-600x316 Is This The Age Of The Small Camera Part 2
The graded image from camera C. Click on the image to view the full resolution image.

 

D-Graded_1.4.1-600x316 Is This The Age Of The Small Camera Part 2
The graded image from camera D. Click on the image to view the full resolution image.

 

E-graded_1.5.1-600x316 Is This The Age Of The Small Camera Part 2
The graded image from camera E. Click on the image to view the full resolution image.



The first thing to take away from all of this then is that you can make any camera look like pretty much any other and a chart such as the “color checker video” and software that can read the chart and correct the colours according to the chart makes it much easier to do this.

To allow for issues with the quality of YouTube’s encoding etc here is a 400% crop of the same clips:

 

What I am expecting is that most people won’t actually see a great deal of difference between any of the cameras. The cheapest camera is $6K and the most expensive $75K, yet it’s hard to tell which is which or see much difference between them. Things that do perhaps stand out initially in the zoomed in image are the softness/resolution differences between the 4K and 8K cameras, but in the first un cropped clip this difference is much harder to spot and I don’t think an audience would notice especially if the one camera is used on it’s own so the viewer has nothing to directly compare it with. It is possible that there are also small focus differences between each camera, I did try to ensure each was equally well focussed but small errors may have crept in.

WHAT HAPPENS IF WE LIFT THE SHADOWS?

OK, so lets pixel peep a bit more and artificially raise the shadows so that we can see what’s going on in the darker parts of the image.

 

There are differences, but again there isn’t a big difference between any of the cameras. You certainly couldn’t call them huge and in all likelihood, even if for some reason you needed to raise or lift the shadows by an unusually large amount as done here (about 2.5 stops) the difference between “best” and “worst” isn’t large enough for it to be a situation where any one of these cameras would be deemed unusable compared to the others.

SO WHY DO YOU WANT A BETTER CAMERA?

So, if we are struggling to tell the difference between a $6K camera and a $75K one why do you want a “better” camera? What are the differences and why might they matter?

When I graded the footage from these cameras in the workshop it was actually quite difficult to find a way to “break” the footage from any of them. For the majority of grading processes that I tried  they all held up really well and I’d be happy to work with any of them, even the cameras using the highly compressed internal recordings held up well. But there are differences, they are not all the same and some are easier to work with than the others. 

The two cheapest cameras were a Sony FX3 and a Sony A1. I recorded using their built in codecs, XAVC-SI in the FX3 and XAVC-HS in the A1. These are highly compressed 10 bit codecs. The other cameras were all recorded using their internal raw codecs which are either 16 bit linear or 12 bit log. At some time I really do need to do a proper comparison of the internal XAVC form the FX3 and the ProResRaw that can be recorded externally. But it is hard to do a fully meaningful test as to get the ProResRaw into Resolve requires transcoding and a lot of other awkward steps. From my own experience the difference in what you can do with XAVC v ProResRaw is very small.

One thing that happens with most highly compressed codecs such as H264 (XAVC-SI) or H265(XAVC-HS) is a loss of some very fine textural information and the image breaking up into blocks of data. But as I am showing these clips via YouTube in a compressed state I needed to find a way to illustrate the subtle differences that I see when looking at the original material. So, to show the difference between the different sensors and codecs within these camera I decided to pick a colour using the Resolve colour picker and then turn that colour into a completely different one, in this case pink.

What this allows you to see is how precisely the picked colour is recorded and it also shows up some of the macro block artefacts. Additionally it gives an indication on how fine the noise is and the textural qualities of the recording. In this case  the finer the pink “noise” the better, as this is an indication of smaller, finer textural differences in the image. These smaller textural details would be helpful if chroma keying or perhaps for some types of VFX work. It might (and say might because I’m not convinced it always will) allow you to push a very extreme grade a little bit further.

I would guess that by now you are starting to figure out which camera is which – The cameras are an FX3, A1, Burano, Venice 2 and an ArriLF.

In this test you should be able to identify the highly compressed cameras from the raw cameras. The pink areas from the raw cameras are finer and less blocky, this is a good representation of the benefit of less compression and a deeper bit depth.

A-Compression_1.1.1-600x316 Is This The Age Of The Small Camera Part 2
Camera A. Click on the image to view the full resolution image.

 

B-Compression_1.2.1-600x316 Is This The Age Of The Small Camera Part 2
Compression and codec Camera B. Click on the image to view the full resolution image.

 

C-Compression_1.3.1-600x316 Is This The Age Of The Small Camera Part 2
Compression and codec Camera C. Click on the image to view the full resolution image.

 

D-compression_1.4.1-600x316 Is This The Age Of The Small Camera Part 2
Compression and codec Camera D. Click on the image to view the full resolution image.

 

E-Compression_1.4.1-600x316 Is This The Age Of The Small Camera Part 2
Compression and codec Camera E. Click on the image to view the full resolution image.



But even here the difference isn’t vast. It certainly, absolutely, exists. But at the same time  you could push ANY of these cameras around in post production and if you’ve shot well none of them are going to fall apart. 

As a side note I will say that I find grading linear raw footage such as the 16 bit X-OCN from a Venice or Burano more intuitive compared to working with compressed Log. As a result I find it a bit easier to get to where I want to be with the X-OCN than the XAVC. But this doesn’t mean I can’t get to the same place with either.

RESOLUTION MATTERS.

Not only is compression important but so too is resolution. To some degree increasing the resolution can make up for a lesser bit depth.  As these camera all use bayer sensors the chroma resolution will be somewhat less than the luma resolution. A 4K sensor such as the one in the FX3 or the Arri LF will have much lower chroma resolution than the 8K A1, Burano or Venice 2. If we look at the raised shadows clip again we can see some interesting things going on the the girls hair.

 

If you look closely camera D has a bit of blocky chroma noise in the shadows. I suspect this might be because this is one of the 4K sensor cameras and the lower chroma resolution means the chroma noise is a bit larger.

I expect that by now you have an idea of which camera is which, but here is the big reveal: A is the FX3, B is the Venice 2, C is Burano, D is an Arri LF, and E is the Sony A1.

What can we conclude from all of this: 

There are differences between codecs. A better codec with a greater bit depth will give you  more textural information. It is not necessarily simply that raw will always be better than YUV/YCbCr but because of raws compression efficiency it is possible to have very low levels of compression and a deep bit depth. So, if you are able to record with a better codec or greater bit depth why not do so. There are some textural benefits and there will be fewer compression artefacts. BUT this doesn’t mean you can’t get a great result from XAVC or another compressed codec.

If using a bayer sensor than using a sensor with more “K” than the delivery resolution can bring textural benefits.

There are differences in the sensors, but these differences are not really as great as many might expect. In terms of DR they are all actually very close, close enough that in the real world it isn’t going to make a substantial difference. As far as your audience is concerned I doubt they would know or care. Of course we have all seen the tests where you greatly under expose a camera and then bring the footage back to normal, and these can show differences. But that’s not how we shoot things. If you are serious about getting the best image that you can, then you will light to get the contrast and exposure that you want. What isn’t in this test is rolling shutter, but generally I rarely see issues with rolling shutter these days. But if you are worried about RS, then the Venice 2 is excellent and the best of the group tested here.

Assuming you have shot well there is no reason why an audience should find the image quality from the $6K FX3 unacceptable, even on a big screen. And if you were to mix and FX3 with a Venice 2 or Burano, again if you have used each camera equally well I doubt the audience would spot the difference.

BACK TO THE BEGINNING:

So this brings me back to where I started in part 1. I believe this is the age of the small camera – or at least there is no reason why you can’t use a camera like an FX3 or an A1 to shoot a movie. While many of my readers I am sure will focus on the technical details of the image quality of camera A against camera B, in reality these days it’s much more about the ergonomics and feature set as well as lens and lighting choices.

A small camera allows you to be quick and nimble, but a bigger camera may give you a lot more monitoring options as well as other things such as genlock. And….. if you can – having a better codec doesn’t hurt. So there is no – one fits all – camera that will be the right tool for every job.  

Is this the age of the small camera? Part 1.

As Sony’s new Burano camera starts to ship – a relatively small camera that  could comfortably be used to shoot a blockbuster movie we have to look at how over the last few years the size of the cameras used for film production has reduced.

Which-is-which1-600x474 Is this the age of the small camera? Part 1.
Which was shot with an 8K Venice 2 and which was shot with a 4K FX3?

 

Only last year we saw the use of the Sony FX3 as the principle camera for the movie the Creator. What is particularly interesting about the Creator is that the FX3 was chosen by the director Gareth Edwards for a mix of both creative and financial reasons.

the-creator-600x338 Is this the age of the small camera? Part 1.

To save money or to add flexibility?

To save money, rather than building a lot of expensive sets Edwards chose to shoot on location using a wide and varied range of locations (80 different locations)  all over Asia. To make this possible he used a smaller than usual crew.  Part of the reasoning that was given was that it was cheaper to fly a small crew to all these different locations than to try to build a different set for each part of the film. The film cost $80 million to make and took $104 million in the box office, a pretty decent profit at a time when many movies take years to break even.

Creator-BTS-600x337 Is this the age of the small camera? Part 1.
FX3 on gimbal during the filming of The Creator



The FX3 was typically mounted on a gimbal and this allowed them to shoot quickly and in a very fluid manner, making use of natural light where possible.  A 2x anamorphic lens was used and the final delivery aspect ratio was a very wide 2.76:1. The film was edited first and then when the edit was locked down the VFX elements were added to the film. Modern tracking and rotoscoping techniques make it much easier to add VFX into sequences without needing to use green or blue screen techniques and this is one of those areas where AI will become a very useful and powerful tool.

You don’t NEED a big camera, but you might want one.

So, what is clear is that you don’t NEED a big camera to make a feature film and The Creator demonstrates that an FX3 (recording to an Atomos Ninja) offers sufficient image quality to stand up to big screen presentation. I don’t think this is really anything new, but we have now reached the stage where the difference in image quality between a cheap $1500 camera like the FX30 and a high end “cinema” camera like the $70K  Venice 2  is genuinely so small that an audience probably won’t notice.

There may be reasons why you might prefer to have a bigger camera body – it does make mounting accessories easier and will often have much better monitoring and viewfinder options. And you may argue that a camera like Venice can offer greater image quality (as you will see in part 2 – it technically does have a higher quality image than the FX3), but would the audience actually be able to see the difference and even if they can would they actually care? And what about post production – surely a better quality image is a big help with post – again come back for part 2 where I explore this in more depth.

which-is-which2-600x438 Is this the age of the small camera? Part 1.
Which is the Arri LF and which is the Sony A1?


And small cameras will continue to improve. If what we have now is already good enough things can only get better.

8K Benefits??

Since the launch of Burano I’ve become more and more convinced of the benefits of an 8K sensor – even if you only ever intend to deliver in 4K, the extra chroma resolution from actually having 4K of R and B pixels makes a very real difference. Venice 2 really made me much more aware of this and Burano confirms it. Because of this I’ve been shooting a lot more with the Sony A1 (which possibly shares the same sensor as Burano). There is something I really like about the textural quality in the images from the A1, Burano and Venice 2 (having said that after spending hours looking at my side by side test samples from both 4K and 8K cameras while the difference is real, I’m not sure it will always be seen in the final deliverable). In addition when using a very compressed codec such as the XAVC-HS in the A1 recording at 8K leads to smaller artefacts which then tend to be less visible in a 4K deliverable. This allows you to grade the material harder than perhaps you can with similarly compressed 4K footage. The net result is the 10 bit 8K looks fantastic in a 4K production.

A1-Face-600PC-600x317 Is this the age of the small camera? Part 1.
Sony A1 cropped and zoomed in 6x.


I have to wonder if The Creator wouldn’t have been better off being shot with an A1 rather than an FX3. You can’t get 8K raw out of an A1, but the extra resolution makes up for this and it may have been a better fit for the 2x anamorphic lens that they used.

So many choices….

And that’s the thing – we have lots of choices now. There are many really great small cameras, all capable of producing truly excellent images. A small camera allows you to be nimble. The grip and support equipment becomes smaller. This allows you to be more creative. A lot of small cameras are being used for the Formula 1 movie, small cameras are often mixed with larger cameras and these days the audience isn’t going to notice. 

Plus we are seeing a change in attitudes. A few years ago most cinematographers wouldn’t have entertained the idea of using a DSLR or pocket sized camera as the primary camera for a feature. Now it is different, a far greater number of DP’s are looking at what a small camera might allow them to do, not just as a B camera but as the A camera. When the image quality stops being an issue, then small might allow you to do more.

This doesn’t mean big cameras like Venice will go away, there will always be a place for them. But I expect we will see more and more really great theatrical releases shot with cameras like the FX3 or A1 and that makes it a really interesting time to be a cinematographer. Again, look at The Creator – this was a relatively small budget for a science fiction film packed with CGI and other effects. And it looked great. Of course there is also that middle ground, a smaller camera but with the image quality of a big one – Burano perhaps?

In Part 2……

In part 2 I’m going to take some sample clips that I grabbed at a recent workshop from a Venice 2, Burano, A1 and FX3 and show you just how close the footage from these cameras is. I’ll also throw in some footage from an Arri LF and then I’ll “break” the footage in post production to give you an idea of where the differences are and whether they are actually significant enough to worry about.

 

Core Power Control Module for Sony Venice

I have recently been running a series of masterclasses and workshops for the Sony Venice 2 across the Middle East and Africa.

IMG_0234-scaled Core Power Control Module for Sony Venice
From a Venice Masterclass I ran in Nigeria.

 

An issue that I keep encountering in that region is the prolific use of 12 – 14v accessories that are powered via D-Tap cables, for example follow focus units or small monitors. The Venice camera only has a single 12v lemo DC output and the amount of power available from this is limited.
In addition connecting D-Taps to batteries is very risky. Each time you have to change the battery you have to reconnect the D-Tap and this is when you are at the highest risk of the D-Tap ground pin not connecting correctly and then your SDI cables or other accessory cables become the ground causing damage to the camera or accessories. I really wanted to avoid this, a camera going down is never a good thing.

So – I needed to find a solution to these problems and the solution I found was the Core Power Control Module.

Screenshot-2023-05-21-at-15.46.56-600x431 Core Power Control Module for Sony Venice
Core Power Control Module for the Sony Venice, side view showing the OLED info display.


The module attaches to the V-Mount on the back of the camera and is available with either a  V-Mount or a Gold mount battery plate, so either type of battery can be used. Power is fed to the camera via a short 4 pin XLR cable, this ensures a solid and stable power connection.

The unit can also be powered from a standard 4 pin XLR power supply and that power source can be at any voltage from 11 volts to 34 volts, so you can use a 14.4v power supply or a standard film style block battery. It then takes the input power and regulates it and conditions it to provide smooth clean power to the camera via the cameras 4 pin XLR input. There is also an additional 2 pin Fischer 19.5v to 34 volt failover input to ensure continuous power when this is absolutely essential. 

Screenshot-2023-05-21-at-15.46.31 Core Power Control Module for Sony Venice
Top view of the Core Venice power management control module showing the D-Tap, RS3 and Lemo power outputs. There are 2 versions – one with V-Mount the other with Gold mount.

 

On the top of the unit there are two D-Tap sockets and these output 11 to 17v from the attached battery (one on the gold mount version)  as well as 2 industry standard RS3 Fischer connectors that give a 24 volt 3 amp output and a pair of 2 pin Lemo connectors that give a 12 volt output.  So, all in all you have plenty of power outputs.

On the side of the unit there is an OLED display that gives the voltage of the connected battery and an LED that is normally green but turns red  if the battery voltage starts to drop too low. The unit is super simple to use, jut connect it and go.

IMG_0333-Large Core Power Control Module for Sony Venice
The Core power management module in use between a V-Mount battery and the camera. It’s very compact.


For me the Core Power Control Module has been a real life saver. It’s given me the extra power connections that I need when working with both lower cost accessories that need 11-17v  as well as additional RS3 connections for cinema camera accessories such as Prestons or Cinetapes. The addition protection from damage to the camera that comes from having any D-Taps permanently connected to the adapter rather than a battery is reassuring. It is a compact and lightweight unit so travelling with it is easy. I highly recommend anyone using a Venice should consider it as an option for expanding the cameras accessory power options. 

For more information see: https://coreswx.com/shop/hlx-ven-gp/

Day For Night With Infrared.

Many of you may have already seen articles about how DP Hoyte Van Hoytema used a Panavision System 65 film camera paired with an Alexa 65 modified to be sensitive to infrared light to shoot day for night on the film “Nope”. https://www.cined.com/filming-night-scenes-thinking-outside-the-box-on-the-film-nope/

Can You Make It Work?

Well, I was recently asked if I could come up with a rig to do the same using Sony cameras for an upcoming blockbuster feature with an A-list director being shot by a top DP.  This kind of challenge is something I enjoy immensely, so how could I not accept the challenge! I had some insight into how Hoyte Van Hoytema did it but I had none of the fine details and often its the fine details that make all the difference. And this was no exception. I discovered many small things that need to be just right if this process is to work well. There are a lot of things that can trip you up badly.

So a frantic couple of weeks ensued as I tried to learn everything I could about infrared photography and video and how it could be used to improve traditional day for night shooting. I don’t claim any originality in the process, but there is a lot of information missing about how it was actually done in Nope. I have shot with infrared before, so it wasn’t all new, but I had never used it this way before.

As I did a lot of  3D work when 3D was really big around 15 years ago, including designing award winning 3D rigs, I knew how to combine two cameras on the same optical axis. Even better I still had a suitable 3D rig, so at least that part of the equation was going to be easy (or at least that’s what I thought).

Building a “Test Mule”.

The next challenge was to create a low cost “test mule” camera before even considering what adaptations might be needed for a full blown digital cinema camera. To start with this needed to be cheap, but it also needed to be full frame and capable of taking a wide range of cinema lenses and sensitive to both visible and infrared light. So, I took an old A7S that had been gathering dust for a while, dismantled it and removed the infrared filter from the sensor.

IMG_0078-Large-600x450 Day For Night With Infrared.
A7S being modified for infrared (full spectrum).
IMG_0092-Large-600x450 Day For Night With Infrared.
Panavised and Infrared sensitive A7S with Panavision Primo lens.

 

As the DP wanted to test the process with Panavision lenses the camera was fitted with a PV70 mount and then collimated in it’s now heavily modified state (collimation has some interesting challenges when working with the very different wavelength of infrared light compared to visible). Now I could start to experiment, pairing the now infrared sensitive A7S with a second camera on the 3D rig. We soon found issues with this setup, but it allowed me to take the testing to the next stage before committing to modifying a more expensive camera for infrared.

IMG_0087-Large-600x450 Day For Night With Infrared.



This testing was needed to determine exactly what range of infrared light would produce the best results. The range of infrared you use is determined by filters added to the camera to cut the visible light and only pass certain parts of the infrared spectrum. There are many options, different filters work in slightly different ways. And not only do you need to test the infrared filters but you also need to consider how different neutral density filters might behave if you need to reduce the IR and visible light. Once I narrowed down the range of filters I wanted to test the next challenge was find very high quality filters that could either be fitted inside the camera body behind the lens or that were big enough (120mm +) for the Panavision lenses that were being considered for the film.

Once I had some filters to play with (I had 15 different IR filters) the next step was to start test shooting. I cheated here a bit. For some of the initial testing I used a pair of zoom lenses as I was pairing the A7S with several different cameras for the visible spectrum. The scan areas of the different sensors in the A7S and the visible light cameras were typically very slightly different sizes. So, a zoom lens was used to provide the same field of view from both cameras so that both could be more easily optically aligned on the 3D rig. You can get away with this, but it makes more work for post production as the distortions in each lens will be different and need correcting. For the film I knew we would need identical scan sizes and matched lenses, but that could come later once we knew how much camera modification would be needed. To start with I just needed to find out what filtration would be needed.

At this point I shot around 100 different filter and exposure tests that I then started to compare in post production. When you get it all just right the sky in the infrared image becomes very dark, almost black and highlights become very “peaky”. If you use the luminance from the infrared camera with its black sky and peaky highlights and then add in a bit of colour and textural detail from the visible camera it can create a pretty convincing day for night look. Because you have a near normal visible light exposure you can fine tune the mix of infrared and visible in post production to alter the brightness and colour of the final composite shot giving you a wide range of control over the day for night look.

So – now I know how to do it, the next step was to take it from the test mule to a pair of matching cinema quality cameras and lenses for a full scale test shoot. When you have two cameras on a 3D rig the whole setup can get very heavy, very fast. Therefore the obvious camera to adapt was a Sony Venice 2 with the 8K sensor as this can be made very compact by using the Rialto unit to split the sensor from the camera body – In fact one of the very first uses of Rialto was for 3D shooting on Avatar – The Way of Water.

With a bit of help from Panavision we adapted a Panavised Venice 2, making it full spectrum and then adding a carefully picked (based on my testing) special infrared filter into the cameras optical path. This camera was configured using a Rialto housing to keep it compact and light so that when placed on the 3D rig with the visible light Venice the weight remained manageable. The lenses used were Panavision PV70 Primo’s (if you want to use these lenses for infrared – speak to me first, there are some things you need to know).

IMG_0097-2-Large-600x450 Day For Night With Infrared.
3D rig with an Infrared capable Venice Rialto and normal Venice 2 with Panavision Primo lenses.



And then with the DP in attendance, with smoke and fog machines, lights and grip we tested. For the first few shot we had scattered clouds but soon the rain came and then it poured down for the rest of the day. Probably the worst possible weather conditions for a day for night shoot.  But that’s what we had and of course for the film itself there will be no guarantee of perfect weather.

IMG_0101-Large-600x450 Day For Night With Infrared.
Testing the complete day for night IR rig.

 

IMG_0122-Large-600x450 Day For Night With Infrared.
Testing how smoke behaves in infrared. Different types of smoke and haze and different types of lights behave very differently in infrared.

 

The large scale tests gave us an opportunity to test things like how different types of smoke and haze behave in infrared and also to take a look at interactions with different types of light sources.  With the right lights you can do some very interesting things when you are capturing both visible light and infrared opening up a whole new world of possibilities for creating unique looks in camera.

From there the footage went to the production companies post production facilities to produce dailies for the DP to view before being presented to the studios post production people. Once they understood the process and were happy with it there was a screening for the director along with a number of other tests for lighting and lenses.

IMG_0114-Large-600x450 Day For Night With Infrared.

Along the way I have learnt an immense amount about this process and how it works. What filters to use and when, how to adapt different cameras, how different lenses behave in the infrared spectrum (not all lenses can be used). Collimating adapted cameras for infrared is interesting as many of the usual test rigs will produce misleading or confusing results. I’ve also identified several other ways that a dual camera setup can be used to enhance shooing night scenes, both day for night and as well as at night, especially for effects heavy projects.  

At the time of writing it looks like most of the night scenes in this film will be shot at night, they have the budget and time to do this. But the director and DP have indicated that there are some scenes where they do wish to use the process (or a variation of it), but they are still figuring out some other details that will affect that decision.

Whether it gets used for this film or not I am now developing a purpose designed rig for day for night with infrared as I believe it will become a popular way to shoot night scenes. My cameras of choice for this will be a pair of Venice cameras. But other cameras can be used provided one can be adapted for IR and both can be synchronised together. I will have a pair of Sony F55’s, one modified for IR available for lower budget productions and a kit to reversibly adapt a Sony Venice. If you need a rig for day for night and someone that knows exactly how to do it, do get in touch! 

I’m afraid I can’t show you the test results, that content is private and belongs to the production. The 3D rig is being modified as you don’t need the ability to shoot with the cameras optically separated, removing the moving parts will make the rig more stable and easier to calibrate. Plus a new type of beam splitter mirror with better infrared transmission properties is on the way. As soon as I get an opportunity to shoot a new batch of test content with the adapted rig I will share it here.

Not all ND filters are created equal.

Over the last 2 weeks I have been shooting some tests for a major feature film. The tests involved a special process that involves the use of  Infrared light and shooting outdoors. 

On the test day we had some fairly bright light levels to deal with. So as you would normally do we added some ND filtration to reduce the light levels. Most of the equipment for the shoot was on hire from Panavision, the main cameras being Panavised Sony Venices with PV70 mounts and Panavison lenses. But for reasons I can’t go into yet, we were unable to use the Venice internal ND filters, so we had to use external ND’s.

The first ND’s we used were circular Tiffen IRND’s that were the correct size for the PV lenses. But much to my surprise these made very little difference to the amount of IR reaching the camera. For our application they were absolutely no good. Fortunately, I had a set of Formatt Hitech IRND’s in my camera bag and when we tried these we got an equal visible and infrared cut. So, the Tiffen’s were put back in their boxes and the Formatt filters used instead.

Back at Panavision we did some further testing and found that both the Tiffen and Schnieder IRND’s that we tested had very little IR cut. But the Formatt Hitech and Panavision IRND’s that we tested cut the IR by a very similar amount to the visible light. In addition we were able to test the Venice built in ND filters and found that these too did a very good job at cutting both IR and visible light by similar amounts.

So, my recommendation is – if you are ever concerned about infrared light contaminating  your images use a Venice 2 with it’s built in ND’s, Panavision or Formatt Hitech IRND’s.

You Don’t Always Need To Over Expose S-Log3!

For some reason many people now believe that the only way you can shoot with S-Log3 is by “over exposing” and very often by as much as almost 2 stops (1.7 stops is often quoted).

When Sony introduced the original A7S, the FS5, F5, F55 and FS7 shooting S-Log3 with these cameras was a little tricky because the sensors were quite noisy when used at the relatively high base ISO’s of these cameras. When exposed according to Sony’s recommendation of 41% for middle grey and 61% for a white card the end result would be fairly noisy unless you added a good amount of post production noise reduction. As a result of this I typically recommended exposing these particular cameras between 1 and 2 stops brighter than the base level. If using the F5 or FS7 I would normally use 800EI which would lead to an exposure +1.3 stops brighter than base. This worked well with these cameras to help control the noise, but did mean a 1.3 stop loss of highlight range. In other examples I used to recommend exposing a white card at white at 70% which would equate to an exposure a touch over 1 stop brighter than the base level.

With the introduction of the original Venice camera and then the FX9 we got a new generation of much lower noise sensors with dual base ISO’s. It soon became clear to me that these new cameras didn’t  normally need to be exposed more brightly than the Sony recommended levels when using their low base ISO’s and even at their high base ISO’s you can typically get perfectly acceptable results without shooting brighter, although sometimes a small amount of over exposure or a touch of noise reduction in pots might be beneficial. No longer needing to expose more brightly brought with it a useful increase in the usable highlight range, something the earlier cameras could struggle with.

Then the A7S3, FX6 and FX3 came along and again at the lower of their base ISO’s I don’t feel it is necessary to shoot extra bright. However at the 12,800 high base ISO there is a fair bit more noise. So I will typically shoot between 1 and 2 stops brighter at the high base ISO to help deal with the extra noise. On the FX6 and FX3 this normally means using between 6400 and 3200 EI depending on the scene being shot.

Even though I and many others no longer advocate the use of extra bright exposures at the lower base ISO’s with these newer cameras it really does surprise me how many people believe it is still necessary to shoot up to 2 stops over. It’s really important to understand that shooting S-Log3 up to 2 stops over isn’t normal. It was just a way to get around the noise in the previous cameras and in most cases it is not necessary with the newer cameras. 

Not having to shoot brighter means that you can now use the Viewfinder Display Gamma Assist function in the A7S3, A1 or the FX9 (for those times you can’t use a LUT) to judge your exposure with confidence that if it looks right, it most likely will be right. It also means that there is no longer any need to worry about offset LUT’s or trying to correct exposure in post before applying a LUT.

Of course, you can still expose brighter if you wish. Exposing brighter may still be beneficial in scenes with very large shadow areas or if you will be doing a lot of effects work. Or perhaps simply want an ultra low noise end result. But you shouldn’t be terrified of image noise. A little bit of noise is after all perfectly normal.

And one last thing: I don’t like the use of the term “over exposing” to describe shooting a bit brighter to help eliminate noise. If you have deliberately chosen to use a low EI value to obtain a brighter exposure or have decided to expose 1 stop brighter because you feel this will get you the end result you desire this is not (in my opinion) “over exposure”. Over exposure generally means an exposure that is too bright, perhaps a mistake. But when you deliberately shoot a bit brighter because this gets you to where you want to be this isn’t a mistake and it isn’t excessive, it is in fact the correct exposure choice.

Great deals on Venice 2 cameras at Omega Broadcast, Austin USA.

My good friends at Omega Broadcast in Austin, Texas have Venice 2 8K cameras complete with all the accessories such as the viewfinder, licences and AXS media normally needed for a full kit in stock and ready to go if anyone is looking for one. I highly recommend Omega, they are great people to deal with. They also have FX9’s, FX3’s and FX30, plus I’m sure if you drop them a message or give them a call they will be able to let you know when they will next have more FX6’s in stock.

https://www.omegabroadcast.com/

Chart of Sony Dual ISO Base Levels

Here’s a handy chart of the base ISO levels for Sony’s cinema line cameras including Venice, the FX9, FX6, FX3 and FX30 as well as the A7SIII and A7IV. The new Sony FR7 is the same as the FX6. I’ve include the base ISO’s for both S-Log3 and S-Cinetone. If you use other gammas the base levels may be different to the S-Cinetone base level, so these values should only be used for S-Cinetone and S-Log3.  You can click on the image for a bigger version or left click on it to download it.

Slide1-600x364 Chart of Sony Dual ISO Base Levels
The base ISO levels for the FX9, FX6, FX3, FX30, and Venice Cameras.

As explained above there is a difference in the way the dual ISO functions work between the FX6/FX3/A7SIII and the other cameras. Venice, the FX9 and FX30 have sensors with two distinctly different sensitivities. These cameras offer near identical performance at either the low or high base ISO. Sony call these cameras “Dual Base ISO” as in most cases the two base ISO’s can be used in exactly the same way depending on which best suits the light level you are working at and a near identical image produced.

The other cameras (FX6, FX3, A7SIII) probably have a dual gain sensor plus additional processing to deliver their 2 distinctly different sensitivity ranges. The result is that there is a more visible increase in noise at the high range (compared to the Dual Base ISO cameras) plus a very slight reduction in dynamic range. However, the noise level in the high base setting is significantly lower than you would have by adding gain to get to the same level and the upper base sensitivities are very usable and allow for shooting at very low light levels.

For more information on Dual Base ISO sensors take a look here: https://www.xdcam-user.com/2019/11/what-is-dual-base-iso-and-why-is-it-important/

Virtual Production With Venice 2. Dubai Workshop

V-OPT2-OMAR-600x333 Virtual Production With Venice 2.  Dubai WorkshopI have a crazy few weeks coming up. This week I will be filming at the Glastonbury festival, then next week I will be in Dubai for a workshop on virtual production with Sony’s Venice 2 camera. This will be a great opportunity for those that have never been to a virtual studio to have a look at how it all works and what’s involved – nad to see how Venice 2 is an excellent camera for VR thanks to it’s very fast sensor readout speed, frame size flexibility and wide range of frame rates. To join one of the sessions please RSVP to Omar.Abuaisha@sony.com 

CineD Venice 2 Dynamic Range Tests

The recent publication of CineD’s Venice 2 lab tests has created quite a stir and many have asked what my view on this is. You can see the entire test here:  https://www.cined.com/sony-venice-2-lab-test-rolling-shutter-dynamic-range-and-latitude/

I have not done any formal dynamic range testing with Venice 2 myself, but I have shot with it several times. I have also shot with most of Sony’s recent cameras including the original Venice, many different Red cameras and Arri ALexa’s. 

Whenever I shot with Venice 2 the dynamic range has always impressed me. I have been able to pull lots of detail out of the deepest shadows without any issue, no nasty noise artefacts, no coloured blotches.  When I shot the “London Vistas” video in London at night using available light I found the cameras noise floor to be very low, allowing me to get deep shadow textures without issue. The cameras highlight handling has also always impressed me and every time I’ve used Venice 2 I have been delighted with the dynamic range it delivers, it is up there with the Arri Alexa. From my real world shooting experience Venice 2 delivers more DR than my FX9 or FX6 and it delivers it in a very pleasing way. The way the far highlights and deep shadows behave is beautiful.

I would also point out that there are many great examples of deep shadow details and textures that are colour blotch free in Rob Hardy’s “Venizia” short film.

I would point out that CineD noted that the Venice 2 as the delivered the second highest dynamic range result they have seen in their lab when they recorded using the internal 4K ProRes recordings.  Venice 2 comes in just 0.3 stops behind the Alexa in this mode in the CineD tests. CineD have put this down to downsampling from 8K plus the use of additional internal noise reduction. While DCT codecs like ProRes do normally incorporate some degree of NR, I doubt that Sony are doing any significant NR in camera as this tends to degrade the image in other areas. So I find the discrepancy between the results they are seeing between the 16 it X-OCN and the 10 bit ProResHQ very intriguing and it makes me wonder if something else is going on. Downsampling from 8K will certainly help lower the noise a little, but I feel that there is something odd with the X-OCN results, one thing I note is a very raised pedestal on the waveform of the X-OCN, which is somewhat odd, the bit depth should help separate the noise from the useable signal. A camera either has a dynamic range or it doesn’t, only rarely does NR make a significant difference as the sensor analog to digital converters tend to be the one of the main limiting factors. My own real world experience is that Venice 2 when shooting X-OCN has more useable DR than almost every other camera I have used.

Bottom line is – don’t go by the test, try the camera for yourself as I am quite sure you will find, like me, that one thing Venice 2 does not lack is dynamic range. I will try to do my own formal tests as soon as possible.