Jump to content

Firmware update turns Panasonic S1 into an S1H (albeit with record-time limit in demanding modes like 6K)


Andrew Reid
 Share

Recommended Posts

1 hour ago, amweber21 said:

Yeah, I've been there owning various Ninjas and the original video assist 5" and 7", but all for shoulder rigs, where I didn't mind the size and weight and actually needed the monitoring function to view. And used anton bauer batteries to power the rig.

The Sigma fp L has spoiled me for being the smallest raw capable setup I own. Something that I can use my S1 with it's IBIS and keep it small all while shooting raw, would be perfect for me. 

I think the other problem is I know both must be working on something with the age of their recorders. Something more sleek and power efficient, smaller bezels, and smaller media type (at least for Atomos). The Ninja V+ went the opposite direction, but here's hoping there's something else coming. 

Yeah M.2 Drives could make for a much smaller setup. Maybe with a 3" touch screen for easy navigating, or buttons(image that haha). Could just sit on top the hotshoe mount. I do love the idea of a battery grip type recorder, but that's way off from everything atomos has been doing.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 hours ago, TomTheDP said:

I use emotive colors Alexa lut all the time and it didn't seem to work with Prores RAW.

That's my go-to set-up for b-roll right now, I've been shooting everything ProRes Raw and then using the emotive color lut. It's actually super nice, because instead of using the exposure compensation tools from Sage like I used to do, I can just use the ISO controls instead and control the exposure that way. 

One thing you have to watch out for is that Final Cut automatically adds a LUT onto the pro Res raw footage right out of the gate, which you have to disable in that same settings menu, otherwise you'll be putting a LUT on top of a LUT and get hideous results.

---

And for what it's worth, to everyone complaining about the monitors being too bulky, I hate shooting with cages, rails, and bulky rigs too, and for me the ninja v on the hot shoe is totally manageable as a fast, easy run and gun set-up, I don't mind it at all. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 hours ago, Parker said:

That's my go-to set-up for b-roll right now, I've been shooting everything ProRes Raw and then using the emotive color lut. It's actually super nice, because instead of using the exposure compensation tools from Sage like I used to do, I can just use the ISO controls instead and control the exposure that way. 

One thing you have to watch out for is that Final Cut automatically adds a LUT onto the pro Res raw footage right out of the gate, which you have to disable in that same settings menu, otherwise you'll be putting a LUT on top of a LUT and get hideous results.

---

And for what it's worth, to everyone complaining about the monitors being too bulky, I hate shooting with cages, rails, and bulky rigs too, and for me the ninja v on the hot shoe is totally manageable as a fast, easy run and gun set-up, I don't mind it at all. 

Yeah for me even with a Ninja and v mount the Panasonic is still pretty damn small and a little weight helps for movements. 

I was applying the vlog lut and then using the Emotive color lut, maybe that was my mistake. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 6/25/2021 at 4:20 PM, HockeyFan12 said:

I've been wondering about this too. Which do you prefer? 

Also do you see more noise in ProRes raw? HEVC feels clean to me but almost too clean. 

There is a shit ton of noise in ProRes RAW! I did a shoot in the daytime and I had to run it through Neat Video for a few fucking days because it was for a corporate client that had been spoiled by the S1H noise free image. That was the first, and maybe the last time I use ProRes RAW on corporate work.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Lux Shots said:

There is a shit ton of noise in ProRes RAW! I did a shoot in the daytime and I had to run it through Neat Video for a few fucking days because it was for a corporate client that had been spoiled by the S1H noise free image. That was the first, and maybe the last time I use ProRes RAW on corporate work.

It's certainly far noisier than the in-camera codecs, that's for sure. But most of the time I'm lowering the ISO in post quite a bit anyway, and I actually quite like the textured, much more organic feel, at least for certain projects. It feels like there's an added depth and thickness to the images that I'm a fan of. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Parker said:

It's certainly far noisier than the in-camera codecs, that's for sure. But most of the time I'm lowering the ISO in post quite a bit anyway, and I actually quite like the textured, much more organic feel, at least for certain projects. It feels like there's an added depth and thickness to the images that I'm a fan of. 

 

7 hours ago, Lux Shots said:

There is a shit ton of noise in ProRes RAW! I did a shoot in the daytime and I had to run it through Neat Video for a few fucking days because it was for a corporate client that had been spoiled by the S1H noise free image. That was the first, and maybe the last time I use ProRes RAW on corporate work.

I'd assume if you over expose by a stop or so it would be clean but I haven't played around with it enough to know. I usually over expose the S1 by 1-2 stops, sometimes even more, just with the internal codec. I've found the S1 can hold close to 5 stops over exposed, but doesn't love underexposure. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

RAW video is always much nosier because it come strait from the sensor. In camera video recording is heavily denoised. Great performance of sensors in low light when using internal recording is mostly result of good in camera denoise.

When using RAW footage and high ISO you'll have to denoise in post production. Result will be even better than in camera denoise but unfortunately requires powerful GPU and will take a lot more time for the final rendering. Actually one colorist said that you have to denoise always when using digital camera. 🙂

Another way to reduce the noise of RAW footage with Panasonic S1/S5/S1H would be to shoot at 6K, then reduce resolution to 4K in post. It automatically gets rid of some of the noise.

It is also well known fact that BRAW is partially debayered in camera otherwise it will infringe RED patent about compressed video. External recorders are not affected by the patent. While not true RAW, BRAW recording results are more than good for me and major factor to buy Panasonic + Blackmagic Video Assist. BRAW has other advantages as for example multiple quality settings and as result reduced file size. And of course ability to edit straight from the recorder in Davinci Resolve. Using ProRes RAW or Blackmagic BRAW is more choice of NLE than anything else. Quality differences are negligible and visible only in some cases and with heavy pixel peeping.

Here is a good test of Blackmagic BRAW vs Prores RAW which demonstrates well the noise problem and differences between the two RAW formats:


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qPB6wrVKHiw

Link to comment
Share on other sites

23 hours ago, stephen said:

When using RAW footage and high ISO you'll have to denoise in post production. Result will be even better than in camera denoise but unfortunately requires powerful GPU and will take a lot more time for the final rendering. Actually one colorist said that you have to denoise always when using digital camera. 🙂

Silly. Film is a lot grainier and we accept that as part of the aesthetic, so I don't know why we need to treat video differently and expect total cleanness to the point of sterility. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

18 minutes ago, Chrad said:

Silly. Film is a lot grainier and we accept that as part of the aesthetic, so I don't know why we need to treat video differently and expect total cleanness to the point of sterility. 

I think the issue is film generally reacts nicer to over and under exposure so noise is more acceptable. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, TomTheDP said:

I think the issue is film generally reacts nicer to over and under exposure so noise is more acceptable. 

Right, but having a blanket approach of shot on digital = we have to denoise that, every time, suggests a lack of tolerance for even naturally occuring, finely controlled noise, and possibly a love for plastic textures.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Chrad said:

Silly. Film is a lot grainier and we accept that as part of the aesthetic, so I don't know why we need to treat video differently and expect total cleanness to the point of sterility. 

Here is my understanding:

  1. Noise is digital destroys information and integrity of the picture. Grain in film just gives a flavor to the picture
  2. Noise in digital often has a pattern as digital sensor have such a pattern, grain in film is random.
  3. Noise in digital is not pleasant to the eye, grain in film is. Maybe because we are conditioned by watching film for many years.

That's why noise is undesirable, grain often is. If you watch the video that published above, you'll see how information is actually recovered after denoise.

That's why in post typically you denoise first, then add grain. If of course, you want to simulate some of film characteristics.

Also worth to note that when grain is too big or too much it also can affect the picture quality negatively. For years landscape photographers used Velvia emulsion, because of it's fine grain. In landscape photography you want all fine details to be well visible and defined. So we can't put a blanket statement that grain is always good. It depends on it's quality and quantity. Same for digital noise. Some small amount of digital noise is tolerable for me and most people.

It is also my observation that some of pro colorists and DP, try to emulate if not all at least some of the characteristics of film while using digital material. Film is with us for more than 100 years, we learnt quite a lot about images and did quite many studies and improvements in this area.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, stephen said:

Here is my understanding:

  1. Noise is digital destroys information and integrity of the picture. Grain in film just gives a flavor to the picture
  2. Noise in digital often has a pattern as digital sensor have such a pattern, grain in film is random.
  3. Noise in digital is not pleasant to the eye, grain in film is. Maybe because we are conditioned by watching film for many years.

That's why noise is undesirable, grain often is. If you watch the video that published above, you'll see how information is actually recovered after denoise.

That's why in post typically you denoise first, then add grain. If of course, you want to simulate some of film characteristics.

Also worth to note that when grain is too big or too much it also can affect the picture quality negatively. For years landscape photographers used Velvia emulsion, because of it's fine grain. In landscape photography you want all fine details to be well visible and defined. So we can't put a blanket statement that grain is always good. It depends on it's quality and quantity. Same for digital noise. Some small amount of digital noise is tolerable for me and most people.

It is also my observation that some of pro colorists and DP, try to emulate if not all at least some of the characteristics of film while using digital material. Film is with us for more than 100 years, we learnt quite a lot about images and did quite many studies and improvements in this area.

Yes although digital grain can be pleasing depending on the camera. For the Oscar nominated film Lady Bird they used the grain from the Alexa sensor as an aesthetic choice. They shot in 2k and would underexpose the sensor and normalize in post to bring out the grain. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, stephen said:

Here is my understanding:

  1. Noise is digital destroys information and integrity of the picture. Grain in film just gives a flavor to the picture
  2. Noise in digital often has a pattern as digital sensor have such a pattern, grain in film is random.
  3. Noise in digital is not pleasant to the eye, grain in film is. Maybe because we are conditioned by watching film for many years.

That's why noise is undesirable, grain often is. If you watch the video that published above, you'll see how information is actually recovered after denoise.

That's why in post typically you denoise first, then add grain. If of course, you want to simulate some of film characteristics.

Also worth to note that when grain is too big or too much it also can affect the picture quality negatively. For years landscape photographers used Velvia emulsion, because of it's fine grain. In landscape photography you want all fine details to be well visible and defined. So we can't put a blanket statement that grain is always good. It depends on it's quality and quantity. Same for digital noise. Some small amount of digital noise is tolerable for me and most people.

It is also my observation that some of pro colorists and DP, try to emulate if not all at least some of the characteristics of film while using digital material. Film is with us for more than 100 years, we learnt quite a lot about images and did quite many studies and improvements in this area.

I honestly think it just comes down to technology and conditioning. If filmmakers of the past had the ability to DNR the hell out of grainy filmstock, a subset of them would have done just that. They had no such luxury, so they sought out the finest grained stock they could access and/or embraced it as an aesthetic quality of the image. With digital, we developed the technology to scrub the image of noise before people the textures of digital filmmaking had stopped seeming alien, let alone started to be romanticized for its limitations and quirks.

I don't really think it's true that noise destroys resolution, and grain only adds flavour. Large grained filmstock is considered to hold less resolution relative to finer grained stock. Outside of extreme examples of visible FPN in the image, I also don't think the pattern vs random aspect makes much difference to the viewer. In practice, digital noise is perceived as random. 

The appearance of noise varies from camera to camera, but I think it's the kind of imperfection that can prevent images from looking sterile and inhuman. I look at it as the surface of the medium becoming visible. The philosophy that denoising should always be applied to digitally sourced images seems like one that's opposed to to the inherent characteristics of digital, and ironically it's one that ends up creating images even further removed from the world of film. To me it's more interesting to be open to the new. Noise can be ugly, but it can also in the right hands have a soulful texture to it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 7/1/2021 at 5:31 AM, Chrad said:

Silly. Film is a lot grainier and we accept that as part of the aesthetic, so I don't know why we need to treat video differently and expect total cleanness to the point of sterility. 

Usually you denoise and then add grain :).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 7/1/2021 at 3:31 AM, Chrad said:

Silly. Film is a lot grainier and we accept that as part of the aesthetic, so I don't know why we need to treat video differently and expect total cleanness to the point of sterility. 

The colourist in question was probably referring more to chroma noise, which I think we can all agree is pretty ugly and 'video' looking. I've seen a couple of videos showing how drastically improved even quite clean-looking clips can be once it's removed.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Tim Sewell said:

The colourist in question was probably referring more to chroma noise, which I think we can all agree is pretty ugly and 'video' looking. I've seen a couple of videos showing how drastically improved even quite clean-looking clips can be once it's removed.

I can agree on that. And big FPN patterns.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Administrators
On 7/1/2021 at 4:31 AM, Chrad said:

Silly. Film is a lot grainier and we accept that as part of the aesthetic, so I don't know why we need to treat video differently and expect total cleanness to the point of sterility. 

Well you'd need to shoot uncompressed Cinema DNG for the finest noise grain, because that is first to go in a compressed RAW format.

Actually, it might even be best to shoot H.265 internally and apply a real 35mm film grain scan in post!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 6/30/2021 at 7:31 PM, Chrad said:

Silly. Film is a lot grainier and we accept that as part of the aesthetic, so I don't know why we need to treat video differently and expect total cleanness to the point of sterility. 

Film grain is "organized" to actually form/create the image, while noise is random (except for FPN) and obscures the image.

 

 

On 7/1/2021 at 6:00 AM, Chrad said:

I don't really think it's true that noise destroys resolution,...

Noise doesn't "destroy" resolution -- it just obscures pixels.  On the other hand, with too much noise the image forming pixels are not visible, so there's no discernible image and, thus, no resolution.

 

 

On 7/1/2021 at 6:00 AM, Chrad said:

...and grain only adds flavour.

Grain actually forms the image on film.  Noise obscures the image.

 

 

On 7/1/2021 at 6:00 AM, Chrad said:

Large grained filmstock is considered to hold less resolution relative to finer grained stock.

Yep.

 

 

On 7/1/2021 at 6:00 AM, Chrad said:

I also don't think the pattern vs random aspect makes much difference to the viewer.

That notion is subjective, but not uncommon.

 

 

On 7/1/2021 at 6:00 AM, Chrad said:

In practice, digital noise is perceived as random. 

Actual electronic noise is random, whether digital or analog.  It could be argued that FPN and extraneous signal interference are not "noise."

 

 

On 7/1/2021 at 6:00 AM, Chrad said:

The appearance of noise varies from camera to camera, but I think it's the kind of imperfection that can prevent images from looking sterile and inhuman.

This is another subjective but common notion.

 

 

On 7/1/2021 at 6:00 AM, Chrad said:

I look at it as the surface of the medium becoming visible.

Again, with the medium of film, grain is organized to actually form the image -- noise is random and noise obscures the image.

 

 

On 7/2/2021 at 12:13 AM, Zeng said:

Usually you denoise and then add grain :).

To me, it doesn't make much sense to remove random noise and then add an overlay of random grain -- grain that does absolutely nothing to form the image.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...

I just got my hands on a Ninja V. I did a test shooting towards a window. Today is a bright sunny day so the light is very heavy outside. I exposed to retain the highlights and then pushed the ISO from 640 to 6400 to bring up the shadows. While it's very noisy I don't see any banding or fixed noise pattern. The noise seems free from any artificial noise reduction, would probably clean up nicely in neat video. 

Rauh6zQ.jpg
fMW1Xe1.jpg


Below is normally exposed, while trying to retain the highlights a bit. It retains a lot of highlight detail while remaining noise free in the midtones and shadows. 

ZGBCewu.jpg

Overall RAW from the S1 off the Ninja V is amazing. The one thing I'd like is a curves tab in the RAW control panel in FCP. Outside of adjusting ISO you can't push and pull the shadows and highlights much as it doesn't seem to be modifying the RAW data. 

The only hindrance on the S1 is moire from the lack of anti aliasing filter. I'd also note the RAW to VLOG conversion is not giving the same colors as VLOG off the S1 internal files. 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Restore formatting

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

 Share

×
×
  • Create New...