paulinventome

I had mentioned this before to them but i didn't have any data at that point.
I will do some tests this weekend. I think collectively we may be able to hammer it down a bit better. I don't like it when things *randomly* differe, it usually means we just don't know the pattern yet.
One thing is to see whether the flickering at different ISOs is uniform across 8,10 and 12 - because i would guess that if there is a bug then it is in that process - from the sensor to DNG.
Also important to see if this is affecting all of us...
cheers
Paul

Fixed in current firmware.
It is very good with M lenses so far. No OLPF but don't know about the thickness of the filter stack. I need to get hold of a 28 cron to test with but others seem fine
cheers
Paul

I have an MC21 but its the Sigma SA to L version so its Sigma lenses only and on the FP whilst they do work I can't get the OIS working on them so I need to dig into that a bit, though I suspect its because the two lenses in question aren't on the compatibility list.
@Andrew Reid has the EF version and has been using it on the S1 and FP with EF lenses so hopefully he will break cover long enough to comment.
Here is a video of someone using it on the FP with a couple of non Sigma EF lenses in the meantime.
As a more general look at how the adapter copes with a broader variety of non-Sigma lenses this uses quite a wide range of them on an S1and a crowd sourced list of tested Sigma and non-Sigma lenses and how they perform on it on the S1.
https://www.tttphotography.com/sigma-mc-21-ef-l-lens-adapter-compatibility/
As always with these things though, the difference between stills and video mode is where all the performance caveats live.
 

Well i am hoping that the next small update in a few days is a bug fix.
I just care about
- getting a tone curve for 10 bit, as they have done for 8bit, so that 10 bit has the same shadows as 12 bit. And means i can shoot full quality at 25p
- getting some other crops, like DCI 4K
- maybe some settings over scaling quality (sharper vs smoother)

I think if all those that agree email and twitter then they can see that the demand is there.

None of the above strikes me as a difficult development job. If the firmware was open i'm sure we could do it.

cheers
Paul

Is it this one ?
http://www.ggsfoto.com/en/products/OCULAR.html
Looks very smart with the Hasselblad 500CM styling !
I bought a (very) cheapo rubber collapsible loupe which was 3.2 inch and works well on the FP but I need to sort out a mount for it.
Based on that, the Nikon D5 version of the Ocular would be the one to get as its the same screen size and the frame looks to be equal thickness on each edge.
This is a UK dealer/distributor for it 
https://www.cameraclean.co.uk/products.php?cat=Ocular+Folding+Viewfinder+-+Black
I've bought quite a few bits off them at the Photo/Video show at the NEC over the years and they were set to be there for this year's one until the cancellation which would have been an ideal time to have a hands on look at the Ocular.
The stuff they pick up distribution for has always been decent quality though so, for me personally, that would maybe less of a risk of the unknown as a blind purchase if they are selling them. 
 

Yes, I am on the latest firmware. The notes only mention that they fixed the first frames being enlarged.
I have 3D printed a cheap viewfinder attachment that works with a 3.2" Display Loupe you can find on ebay for 20€. I don't know how long it will last but right now it sits pretty tight. It locks into the small vent holes at the top and you can still use all the buttons.
If anyone is interested, message me and I can send you the blender file.
 
 

Thanks to @cpc for actually reading what you were asking. I am always syncing audio from separate recorder so never think of cDNG being anything other than just frames.
cheers
Paul

The problem is missing time codes in the audio files recorded by the camera. Resolve needs these to auto sync audio and image and present them as a single entity.
Paul has posted a workaround here:
As a general rule, if the uncompressed image and audio don't auto sync in Resolve, the compressed image won't auto sync either.

Is there not timecode both in the audio and frames. Usually i sync everything via timecode.
Ah, i just looked. There's no timecode in the wav files!!! But there is in the video. Surely that's a bug and that's why resolve can't automagically do anything.
If you click on a wav and put the starting TC based on the DND sequence and then Auto Sync via TC that audio will be part of the sequence and you can drag it down.
cheers
Paul

FP on top, Q file below. I tried not to alter the Q pic too much, balancing the exposure and adding a little saturation, no sharpening. I did more balancing to try and match the exposure and colour on the FP file, no sharpening. Simple Jpeg export.
The 3rd party lens hood I chose for the Takamur 28mm clearly vignettes.
 
 

This was announced a while back and i was understanding it would be released beginning of March at the CP show - but that show was cancelled and for some reason the release pushed back a few weeks. Lets hope it was pushed back to fix a few more things...
cheers
Paul

They really need something like Leica's evf for the TL series but at the Sigma LVF-11 price point.

Pro tip:  set camera sharpness to the max in the camera when shooting raw, to be able to focus better.
I use this for raw stills and for shooting raw video, it really helps to see the focus area.

Im away at the moment so not had a chance to catch up.
They are aware of the DNG flickering and hope it will be in the next firmware last i heard. 
They've now announced the SDK which could be of massive interest, depending on what access the SDK gives you - for me this *could* be the feature that really propels Sigma out there because they're not protecting a line of cine cameras and if the SDK gives full or wide access to the camera then the possibilities could be endless. On the other hand if, like Sony, it's a limited SDK then that's of less use.
I really want an EVF. I don't mind using the optical VF (gotten used to people looking) but it's bulky for a camera so compact. I was wondering if a better optic would work - like half the size but i've not found anyone that has done that. Or a compact EVF would also work - the smallest i'm aware of is the Zacuto stuff but it's still too big. Anyone found anything of interest?
The Video HDR function seems interesting, i wonder what that is...
cheers
Paul

Okay, so you're right - there's something going on here. Although my 800 is stable and i got a quick flicker in 400, just once at the start of recording. There was a fix to the original firmware that 'stopped' something that sounded like this. But clearly hasn't. Although it's not something i've seen in the footage i've shot - so i can't say it's always happening.
I've gone to the source of the files and i believe there's some scaling to the channels that is the cause, in which case there's hope to fix the data before debayer if it has caused a problem.
In the DNG's there is a value called black level, which is subtracted from the image. I see different minimum values for this across two DNGs and i can compensate for that in RAW Digger to see. Even doing that i believe there is a scale going on with the channels.
If it's something that can be sorted it would be best to sort this before debayer in the RAW DNG files.
I will have a word with them to add to any other reports sent.
What we should work out are the circumstances under which the camera does this...
cheers
Paul
EDIT: So i've passed on the files to sigma and see what they say. Useful for others that have similar files to do the same.
 

Okay, so you're right - there's something going on here. Although my 800 is stable and i got a quick flicker in 400, just once at the start of recording. There was a fix to the original firmware that 'stopped' something that sounded like this. But clearly hasn't. Although it's not something i've seen in the footage i've shot - so i can't say it's always happening.
I've gone to the source of the files and i believe there's some scaling to the channels that is the cause, in which case there's hope to fix the data before debayer if it has caused a problem.
In the DNG's there is a value called black level, which is subtracted from the image. I see different minimum values for this across two DNGs and i can compensate for that in RAW Digger to see. Even doing that i believe there is a scale going on with the channels.
If it's something that can be sorted it would be best to sort this before debayer in the RAW DNG files.
I will have a word with them to add to any other reports sent.
What we should work out are the circumstances under which the camera does this...
cheers
Paul
EDIT: So i've passed on the files to sigma and see what they say. Useful for others that have similar files to do the same.
 

Do you agree that the fp was not in focus? (like camera 9)?
If we make the assumption that the fp is using the IMX410 sensor, as is the A7III, Nikon and perhaps the Panasonic then we can see that there is no way that sensor can deliver more than 12 bits in motion. Although there is a crop mode at 14 bits. If you look at the specs for all these other cameras then you can see that 12 bits in motion is pretty much a universal given - Canon say the same for their sensors too.
So the container from the sensor to the camera is a fixed 12 bit bucket.
If we also assume that all sensors are linear (physics and hardware wise this is the case) so the native signal off the sensor is going to be linear for all of these.
Now: either the sensor response in some cases is non-linear (it's possible but i don't think it is the case) or each of these companies is doing something to get these claimed stops beyond 12. In the case of this Sony sensor, is it logarithmically compressing 14 bits down to 12? I think not, there may be a bit of non linearity in the results (there are) but i think that's a function of the sensor itself. In my testing the difference between stills and cine shows that. But i think that goes for any of these sensors.
The latest BMD don't output DNGs anymore? But the old ones compressed 12 bit linear into a 10 bit container with a 1D LUT lookup table (great approach) but the source was no more than 12 bit)
What other cameras currently output DNG? Because it is very easy to look inside those at the RAW data.
And IMHO some of these companies are using techniques like highlight reconstruction to deliver > 12 stops. If you understand that each of the RGB filters has a different sensitivity then you can see how you can take advantage of that and extend the overall range beyond that 12 bit fixed linear container.
With the fp, and being RAW, it is up to you to do that reconstruction work. With other systems that are outputting their own RAW then that work can happen automagically internally. It is true that the reconstruction work is as simple as checking a box in resolve, or as complicated as doing the math yourself. Applications like Lightroom do it whether you want it to or not - it's fundamentally part of the lightroom debayer for stills as well. So the irony is a lot of skies done through lightroom are reconstructed highlights... (ever noticed that the blues can be somewhat off?)
The only time this doesn't count is when you have a cinema camera style sensor which is designed for greater bandwidth inside the sensor itself, 14, 16+ bits are common.
So IMHO i think the fp has a similar range as the other (prosumer) cameras but the data you get off the sensor is 'RAWer' and it's up to you to make the best of it.
This is my assumption. I have no insight into what the manufacturers are doing. I know i sound like a fanboy, i'm not really, my fp is a stop gap until Komodo ships. But i do think it's a wonderful little camera! I like what sigma are doing and they don't have any cinema camera lines to protect. I think they're really well positioned to do something quite special in this market segment and i'd hate for anyone thinking about getting an fp to not do it because of these kinds of conversations!
cheers
Paul
 
 
 

Okay, i downloaded the 'source' file and looked through it.
IMHO the sigma stuff is a touch out of focus. If you compare to the under test you'll see the chart is sharper there. The normal studio test feels the focus is forward (his watch is in better focus)
Even at f2.8 on full frame the DOF is pretty shallow.
If you're not running the camera out to an external monitor critical focus is difficult.
Number 9 is well out of focus as well on the chart and the suggestion is that's 8K red. 
Im not saying for a moment that the fp is in the same league as the others (my red is 10 times the cost) or that the scaling couldn't be better. But it isn't that bad. I've shot full frame UHD and can be obsessive about things and i have no issue with the footage in real life. Yes, the scaling could be better and hopefully it will be. But if you want pixel for pixel sharpness then use DC mode. You have the choice.
I'd rather people petition sigma to push this forward - more crop choices, better scaling and so on. The sensor is there, the camera is capable but i feel sigma need to know this is what we want...
Cheers
Paul

From the outdoor scene it's almost impossible to judge (too much handheld, too much background blur, too much out-of-focus shooting, lack of fine textures/details).
 
From the studio scene:
It can't be 1 (because the scaling/downsampling of small details/text is too clean compared to the Sigma's odd Bayer-to-Bayer downscaling); it's unlikely 2 (because details in this image look too artificially sharp, like it was shot with a conventional codec) It can't be 3 (for the same reasons as 1) It could be 4 - because the fine details are so blurry, just as with the 4K RAW from the 6K sensor of the fp. It can't be 5 (for the same reasons as 1 & 3) It can't be 6 (see above, although there's moiré in the fine details) It can't be 7 (see above) It can't be 8 (see above) It might be 9 because fine details are blurrier and showing moiré, but still too good IMHO So either 4 or 9, more likely 4.
 
From the overexposed studio scene:
4 looks likely, since the Sigma fp really has no log profile and no highlight roll-off to speak of when the image clips. 9 looks too good for being that overexposed... So I'd say it's 4. The weird flashing artifacts of the underexposed studio scene are an indicator of the fp as well, if this was shot with the old firmware.
 
- If it's 4 indeed, then it confirms what we already observed; that the Sigma fp has rather poor Raw video quality for a full frame camera and is significantly worse than the rest. If it's not 4, it would be a pleasant surprise.

Second attempt as i had uploaded the wrong images before.
So long short short,  i was testing resolution of 6k vs FF UHD to check the level of aliasing. The only chart i had was an old one i'd printed off myself many moons ago but should be enough to create issues (but i really need to find a better way...)
But i can clearly see 6K still vs scaled UHD but what i found interesting is if you switch to DC mode i am pretty sure you're just getting a 1:1 crop of the sensor in UHD - it looks similar to the 6K. Either way the DC UHD RAW mode is much clearer than the FF.
But i need to do some better tests but try it yourself and see what you think.
cheers
Paul
 
So top is full frame UHD and lower is DC UHD, see how much clearer the lines are

 

I've just found photoshop on my laptop so used that and yes, the UHD DC crop is a pixel for pixel crop from the centre of the sensor. You can A/B stills and cine and it's identical. So in this mode with no OLPF it would be interesting to see how much moire there is in motion.
I could guess that perhaps the DC HD mode would be pretty good too. The full frame HD mode not so much but there's a even scaling for HD.
cheers
Paul

I've just found photoshop on my laptop so used that and yes, the UHD DC crop is a pixel for pixel crop from the centre of the sensor. You can A/B stills and cine and it's identical. So in this mode with no OLPF it would be interesting to see how much moire there is in motion.
I could guess that perhaps the DC HD mode would be pretty good too. The full frame HD mode not so much but there's a even scaling for HD.
cheers
Paul

Second attempt as i had uploaded the wrong images before.
So long short short,  i was testing resolution of 6k vs FF UHD to check the level of aliasing. The only chart i had was an old one i'd printed off myself many moons ago but should be enough to create issues (but i really need to find a better way...)
But i can clearly see 6K still vs scaled UHD but what i found interesting is if you switch to DC mode i am pretty sure you're just getting a 1:1 crop of the sensor in UHD - it looks similar to the 6K. Either way the DC UHD RAW mode is much clearer than the FF.
But i need to do some better tests but try it yourself and see what you think.
cheers
Paul
 
So top is full frame UHD and lower is DC UHD, see how much clearer the lines are

 

Yes, you're right of course i think on a practical level in those cases it's easier to take the hit for not being 100% physically accurate as a scale is usually pre processing before doing linear comp work (or after). It's nice to run energy conserving convolution filters of lens aberrations over CG footage, works really well, better than blurs.
Yes, these are the kinds of thought experiments i'm trying to wrap my head around. In the case of the edge case (ha pun intended!) even with the full RGGB bayer info would that situation be much different - if the missing pixel between the R and the R is a green - the missing red would still be interpolated. You can of course argue that the luma of the G in that position would be the basis for that interpolation and therefore more accurate. If you scaled the channels down first then output that RGR edge - it would be softened - in your example that applies if you scale up, you are adding data. But scaling down you are removing and averaging. So the thought experiment is what is the best scale to do here - is it nearest neighbour or some kind of non sharpening scale as i can see edge issues with sharpening.
I must assume sigma has tested this if it is in fact what they're doing. 
I must also go back to the basic question i wonder if there's anyway just to get 6K out of this thing. Do we know which specific USB version it's running and what the data rate would be? Also isn't the Red patent to do with lossy compression? If you just do run length encoding on the stream does that not work?
I think sigma should open source the OS
So i've seen a case with the stills doing odd things with exposure, when switching between cine and stills and i am trying to match for testing. But after a reset it stopped. So i reported a bug but wasn't able to give steps to reproduce.
I got caught by having the camera in S mode with a manual lens yesterday - what's annoying is the screen is compensating. So i assume that the camera thinks there is a lens where it can adjust aperture thinks it's stopped the lens down for example and compensates on the LCD but the actual shot is exposed totally wrong. So the M mode is essential.
But it makes me wonder *why* the screen isn't showing an accurate preview of the exposure (and i had the setting on)
So there are some bugs. I've not been massively affected by a shutter lag though. Does it help if you turn off screen black out and also turn on the low previews mode?
cheers
Paul

Hopefully Sigma will read all of this before putting a firmware update out. I'll send them an email with all the annoyances and bugs in it.