Jump to content

slog2 file handling for a7s


Prismo87
 Share

Recommended Posts

Hello all, I'm new to the forum as well as the Sony Alpha world.

Recently I purchased an a7s and more recently, had my first run shooting in slog2.

Once I got to my computer, my first instinct was to import my files to Premiere CC. Once imported, I noticed the files were .mp4, not .mov which seems odd. Upon review of the footage, the picture is pretty noisy and overall the quality seems off. I'm not sure if I'm missing a step in handling these files, or if something is just wrong altogether. Again, this is all new to me. I was expecting the picture to be flat and rather dull before color correction- which it is- but the overall quality seems rather poor to be from slog2. I've included a screen grab of the folder and contents from the card I shot on if this helps.

Thanks! 

Welcome, dear visitor! As registered member you'd see an image here…

Simply register for free here – We are always happy to welcome new members!

Link to post
Share on other sites

I gave up shooting slog2 just because it is hard to properly expose my footage, especially for daytime shots. 

Your slog footage will look much better after color correction!

 

I think your filetype should be .mov. Check your camera settings that you are using the highest quality. Also check your memory card supports the higher quality. You need the SDXC

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...

I gave up shooting slog2 just because it is hard to properly expose my footage, especially for daytime shots. 

Your slog footage will look much better after color correction!

 

I think your filetype should be .mov. Check your camera settings that you are using the highest quality. Also check your memory card supports the higher quality. You need the SDXC

 

What are the correct camera settings? I have a Sony A7S mkii, set to XAVC S 4K, and use a Lexar Professional 128gb 150mbs 1000x SDXC, and I get the mp4 files.

Link to post
Share on other sites

(Copied from the original post elsewhere)

 

MP4 is simply the container - the codec is xavcs (or avchd if you selected that - don't!)

A .mov container is more usually seen with, for example, a prores codec (eg Sony A7 plus Atomos Shogun).

 

What iso are you using? Base 3200 will not be noisy. I used 25/40,000 for a recent aurora trip (linked in the video showcase section below - please view!) and noise is handled ok. This assumes you exposed correctly - worth hunting out Philip Bloom's A7s tutorial at this point. Slog footage exposed incorrectly will look horrid. Promise.

 

Are you familiar with slog and colour grading?

If 'yes' then I'm not sure what to tell you other than to try the other neutral profiles to see if they are better. Not knowing your tolerance level nor your expectations it is difficult to know what you mean by "poor quality".

If 'no' then... Now the fun really starts! I use RedGiant log/lut to start grading the footage in FCP or fiddle (I wouldn't claim to know what I'm doing...) in Resolve. Slog will look poor unless and until it is graded with considerable skill. On eoshd.com it seems to be accepted that Sony colours are very poor out of camera when compated with Canon for example. I have no experience to make the comparison however.

 

Slog from the A7S can be excellent. But it does need care when exposing and TLC in post...

 

Have fun,

Tim

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...

(Copied from the original post elsewhere)

 

MP4 is simply the container - the codec is xavcs (or avchd if you selected that - don't!)

A .mov container is more usually seen with, for example, a prores codec (eg Sony A7 plus Atomos Shogun).

 

What iso are you using? Base 3200 will not be noisy. I used 25/40,000 for a recent aurora trip (linked in the video showcase section below - please view!) and noise is handled ok. This assumes you exposed correctly - worth hunting out Philip Bloom's A7s tutorial at this point. Slog footage exposed incorrectly will look horrid. Promise.

 

Are you familiar with slog and colour grading?

If 'yes' then I'm not sure what to tell you other than to try the other neutral profiles to see if they are better. Not knowing your tolerance level nor your expectations it is difficult to know what you mean by "poor quality".

If 'no' then... Now the fun really starts! I use RedGiant log/lut to start grading the footage in FCP or fiddle (I wouldn't claim to know what I'm doing...) in Resolve. Slog will look poor unless and until it is graded with considerable skill. On eoshd.com it seems to be accepted that Sony colours are very poor out of camera when compated with Canon for example. I have no experience to make the comparison however.

 

Slog from the A7S can be excellent. But it does need care when exposing and TLC in post...

 

Have fun,

Tim

 

Hi - this is a really embarrassing question, but could you tell me how to 'expose two stops to the right' on my brand new and very unfamiliar A7s mkii?

I've tried slog3 and yes it does look horrible compared to Canon c300 footage, or even 5d mkiii.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Expose so that the camera tells you its correct and open up by two stops. But be careful not to blow the highlights - don't let the histogram move too far to the right of the graph. It is the movement of the histogram "to the right" as you "over-expose" which gives it its name: ETTR (expose to the right). Blown highlights cannot be recovered as the sensor has been saturated and the only information it contains is 100% white (I think that sort of makes sense).

 

Ideally, you need to do your own test. Set your zebras to 100% and expose so that nothing important has zebras showing. Shoot for a few seconds. Now try deliberately putting key parts into zebra mide (over-exposed and saturated sensor) and under-exposing. Put the footage into FCP or whatever you use and try recovering the shadows and highlights - look out for blocking and noise.

 

When you say the slog3 footage looks "horrible" do you mean after grading? It shouldn't - although obviously exteme grading shows the flaws with 8 bit codecs (true for any 8 bit not just Sony).

 

I should add that I use a shogun (better focus peaking, histogrames & prores codecs!) with my A7S so I'm not familiar with your A7Sii.

 

Key thing is to test, test, test to find, not what is objectively correct but the look you want for the project you have set yourself.

Tim

Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
 Share

  • Posts

    • Have you used and compared the FE 300mm F2.8 GM OSS with the 2X teleconverter to the FE 200–600 mm F5.6–6.3 G OSS for birds and other wildlife?  I'm considering the FE 300mm F2.8 GM OSS (I already have the 2x teleconverter) to replace the FE 200–600 mm F5.6–6.3 G OSS. I've scoured the web but can't find many helpful direct comparisons.  Application, Environment and Background Info I walk 10-20 kilometres every morning on the southwest coast of British Columbia. It's winter, and in my area that means it's dark and dreary with lots or rain. There are all kinds of birds, from Bald Eagles to Swallows, Hummingbirds and plenty of shorebirds, with many passing through on their migratory paths.  I carry an A1 and FE 200–600 mm F5.6–6.3 G OSS and an A7 IV with a FE 24-105mm F4 G OSS or FE 70-200mm F2.8 GM OSS II for closer opportunities and landscapes.  I'm happy with the FE 200–600 mm F5.6–6.3 G OSS when the light is good, but I'm in the middle of six months of this rainy season, so I'm usually shooting at 600 mm, f/6.3, 1/500 sec for stationary subjects, and 1/2000-1/4000 for things on the move. My ISO is often above 6400.  I don't use a tripod or monopod. I'm always on the move. I frequently crop to 200%.  I rarely do videos. I don't shoot sports. The FE 200–600 mm F5.6–6.3 G OSS serves me well for large birds like Bald Eagles when the light is good.  Although I'm almost always at the long end (600 mm) of the FE 200–600 mm F5.6–6.3 G OSS, I use the zoom when a large bird approaches or for distant landscapes. I don't mind the weight of carrying two cameras with these lenses. Things I hope to change or improve Greater agility with a lighter, shorter lens I struggle to move the lens fast enough to catch swallows and other small birds in flight. I do much better with the FE 70-200mm F2.8 GM OSS II, but I can't fill the frame with that lens.  I can sometimes keep up with those smaller, faster birds, even with the 2x teleconverter, but I still want more reach. Exploring with the 300 mm, fast prime lens I like the idea of expanding my photography as I look for subjects I can capture at 300mm at f/2.8 (people and pet portraits outside, musical acts on stage). Although I have tended to use zoom lenses (FE PZ 16-35 MM F4 G, FE 24-105mm F4 G OSS, FE 70-200mm F2.8 GM OSS II), I got the FE 50mm F1.2 GM and have enjoyed having to work with the fixed focal length and how that leads me in different directions. I wonder if I would find the same thing with the FE 300mm F2.8 GM OSS. Depth of Field and Bokeh I'm unsure if the shallow depth of field and bokeh will make a big difference for me. But I may find that these attributes present new opportunities like the FE 50mm F1.2 GM. Here's what I think will happen. I'll use the FE 300mm F2.8 GM OSS without the teleconverter on dreary days. I have used the FE 70-200mm F2.8 GM OSS II (sometimes with the 2X teleconverter) for those days. I'll use the FE 300mm F2.8 GM OSS with the 2X teleconverter when there's better light.  Expectations of the FE 300mm F2.8 GM OSS with 2X teleconverter  The focus accuracy and speed with the 2X teleconverter will match or better the FE 200–600 mm F5.6–6.3 G OSS  The image quality will be at least as good as the FE 200–600 mm F5.6–6.3 G OSS  I'm happy with the image quality using the FE 70-200mm F2.8 GM OSS II and 2X teleconverter and can tolerate the slightly slower focus speed. I imagine the results will be similar with the FE 300mm F2.8 GM OSS but at least as good or better than the FE 200–600 mm F5.6–6.3 G OSS  It will be easier to track small birds in flight with the FE 300mm F2.8 GM OSS with 2X teleconverter (1675 grams) vs FE 200–600 mm F5.6–6.3 G OSS (2115 grams). The difference is 340 grams (12 oz) and 5.1 cm in length. That should make a difference, right?  Questions Have you tried both? What are your experiences? Will you keep the FE 200–600 mm F5.6–6.3 G OSS? Are my expectations realistic? Thanks for reading and thinking about this with me.
    • One post hit and run.  They must have figured it out. 
    • Other than your disapproval of the stripes.... they're kinda cool. 🫣
  • Topics

×
×
  • Create New...