Another STH v LLO Thread

[BrendanLeahy]

Am I doing something wrong? This is personal preference, but for whatever reason, the LLO appears to be warmer and more inviting, while the STH looks green and a little lifeless. Is that how these two behave, though?


LLO v STH

Is it just that I wasn't feeding the STH enough light? Levels seem to be great and it's overcast today. Took about 4 minutes to swap the OLPFs, put the respective menu settings, and made sure both had the same 320 ISO + 6000K (although I tweaked the white balance in post for the mug and set each to reflect that).

Or, is this the whole point of the STH - to get this kind of flat skin tone to really grade it well in post?

Not complaining, just trying to understand how to make the best of each OLPF and see if I'm screwing up the STH for skintones (and highlights)!

R3D snaps here

 

[Björn Benckert]

Dont know how you get such different results... if I pick on the front gray area of the mug they look quite the same at 1280iso. The LLOLPF holds up better in the darks and the HLOLPF goes a little bit greenish in the skin/darks but nothing big, or? but in your attached pics the mug is red in the lowlight picture and green in the highlight picutre.. are you sure you white balanced on the same spot of both. Also, just saying, better to white balance on something that is not burned out white or a reflective white. That mug reflect the surounding which is not optimal for whitbalancing. You pick up the colors of that reflection which is likely to set the colorbalance a bit off.

 

[Adam Montville]

For this shot, I think I like the LLO more than the STH. Both at ISO 800.

STH

LLO

I think it's easier to get "skin tones" using the LLO for "darker" shots. I didn't have to play with it as long, but I'm sure you can match with both. (I know my STH shot is a little 'green')

 

[BrendanLeahy]

Dont know how you get such different results... if I pick on the front gray area of the mug they look quite the same at 1280iso. The LLOLPF holds up better in the darks and the HLOLPF goes a little bit greenish in the skin/darks but nothing big, or? but in your attached pics the mug is red in the lowlight picture and green in the highlight picutre.. are you sure you white balanced on the same spot of both. Also, just saying, better to white balance on something that is not burned out white or a reflective white. That mug reflect the surounding which is not optimal for whitbalancing. You pick up the colors of that reflection which is likely to set the colorbalance a bit off.

Hmm interesting Björn - I would have thought keeping the white balance the same across both OLPFs wouldn't be problematic/show the strengths + weaknesses of each.

So, it appears to be a matter of still needing to WB after throwing in a new OLPF. Still very curious about the slightly green tint both you and I are getting on the STH / HLOLPF

 

[Stacey Spears]

So, it appears to be a matter of still needing to WB after throwing in a new OLPF.

Yes, absolutely.

 

[Charles Bergquist]

FWIW I've been noticing a green cast to my STH OLPF on recent shoots. This is after I had the system switched to removable and installed a LLO and ordered up a STHO one.

Could be some quality control issues going on.

Make sure you're setting the OLPF correctly in the Maintenance Tab in the Menu.

Just wanted to confirm that I'm seeing similar stuff in full daylight settings.

C

 

[BrendanLeahy]

FWIW I've been noticing a green cast to my STH OLPF on recent shoots. This is after I had the system switched to removable and installed a LLO and ordered up a STHO one.

Could be some quality control issues going on.

Make sure you're setting the OLPF correctly in the Maintenance Tab in the Menu.

Just wanted to confirm that I'm seeing similar stuff in full daylight settings.

C

Yep - set everything up properly - wonder if many other STH owners are getting this?

 

[Akin A]

I've only used LLO, but I made a comment to Phil on his OLPF test thread that I noticed STH has a greenish tint on his images:
http://www.reduser.net/forum/showthread.php?122074-First-Look-Interchangeable-OLPF-on-Dragon/page8

 

[Jacobo Martinez]

What is really revealing for me is when you put the saturation to 2.0, then you can actually see more clearly how much more accurate the color of the STHL is. The LL is more orange on skin tone. Even at the histogram level, you can actually see how it behaves differently while you slide the slider, look at the red channel in the low end, it behaves completely different!

 

[BrendanLeahy]

What is really revealing for me is when you put the saturation to 2.0, then you can actually see more clearly how much more accurate the color of the STHL is. The LL is more orange on skin tone. Even at the histogram level, you can actually see how it behaves differently while you slide the slider, look at the red channel in the low end, it behaves completely different!

I see that - however, the DragonColor2 REDGamma4 settings are there so that you only have to do minor tweaking (if any at all!).

I'm trying to hunt down why STH looks a tinge greener overall - I had really wanted Dragon because so many raved and posted great examples of how the sensor captured "what the eye sees." At least a few others have posted about the green on this thread, so at least I know my eyes aren't playing tricks on me!

 

[Daniel Reed]

EDIT - After looking at both R3D snaps, I suspect black shading may be the culprit here



Side note: A better comparison would have been made by matching exposures closer.
i.e. give STH a stop more light via aperture or shutter (not ASA/ISO), or put a 1 stop ND on the LLO
(GAH... this reminds me I need to recal my light meter for both STH & LLO... /cry)


Question, did you use a color meter to get 6K kelvin? If not, why 6K?
Was this shot primarily in shadow? aka no key?


I'm looking at the R3D snaps now... Both appear a lot noisier then I suspect they should be.
What did you do for black shading? Was the camera w/in temp ranges when you were shooting?
I'm guessing if you recorded this immediately after swapping to the STH OLPF the camera hadn't warmed back up yet.
(you mentioned 4 mins... thats not enough time to warm the monster back up :devil


I can't recall if you're suppose to have different BS Cal settings for the different OLPFs, but I swap between calibration profiles when I change the OLPF. I've see some strange color out of the camera just after it boots up after being off for 5~ish mins, refer to the T/E meter. A quick tip, is to just record a quick clip help warm it up. You can now store up to 4 calibration profiles - use them. Mine came w/ one thats listed as something "factory", I use the next two as a default quick goto based on OLPF. I use the 4th profile to do custom cals on the spot.

Lastly, was this recent firmware?



Just trying to help & understand :thumbsup:

 

[Hans von Sonntag]

The picture of the SHT differentiate much more in the colours. Please compare the furniture to the colours of his hair. Same applies with the skin tone. It's a bit unexposed though.

Cute boy, BTW!

Hans

 

[David Battistella]

Hey Brendan,

Is that the same boy you are carrying in your avatar?

I looked at them both. I think that it might also be a slight a lighting difference. With the right hand blocking the key, most of the fill light is coming straight off the marble surface.

The cup stays consistent because it does not move, but the key light is slightly blocked by the right hand. Do you have a frame where his hands are in front, like on the other sample.

The WB does change significantly when taking the WB off the cup, in RCX there is much more tint shift going on with the STH and the temp is around 5400 as opposed to 5100. But that is to be expected as the STH itself is more cyan.

For those claiming black shading, calibration with either OLPF is interchangeable. That is to say, you DO NOT have to change black shading calibrations when changing OLPF's.

To put it another way to me the LLO is more SONY and the STH is more KODAK and I do feel there is more gradable tonal range in the STH, esp in the highlights as to be expected.

Battistella

 

[Brian Boyer]

Is there a point in the STH version where he doesn't have his hands up by his face? It's the most important part of the image. At the risk of sounding like an ass, it always irks me a little bit when people ask you to compare two images that lack consistency in the areas where it counts the most. Sorry.

Having said that, the STH pic is greener depending on where you pick to WB. I WB'd off the shadow area of the bottom outside of the handle. I raised the LLO ISO to 640 and raised the STH ISO to 800 in order to match exposures. I also added a bit of post Saturation (1.119) for both images.

EDIT: I just realized this is almost exactly what Björn did. I couldn't see them all that well on my phone. At any rate, here are large pictures to look at.

Open images in a new window for larger versions.


STH:

LLO:

 

[Daniel Reed]

Thanks David, I wasn't sure if I needed separate cals per OLPF, now I know :thumbsup:

I do suspect the camera may not have warmed up enough between OLPF change-outs.
I've noticed a similar increases in noise and weird color shifts when quickly swapping the filters.
The STH shot has noise everywhere, not just in shadow.
The OP mentioned 4 mins between shots.

For those claiming black shading, calibration with either OLPF is interchangeable. That is to say, you DO NOT have to change black shading calibrations when changing OLPF's.
Battistella

That's a great way to describe the OLPF "looks"!

I definitely have noticed the STH felt closer to K vision3 stock.

I didn't make the Sony connection to the LLO.
I completely agree the LLO looks like Sony, no wonder I tend to not like it.

To put it another way to me the LLO is more SONY and the STH is more KODAK and I do feel there is more gradable tonal range in the STH, esp in the highlights as to be expected. Battistella

 

[Tommaso Alvisi]

Hey Brendan,

For those claiming black shading, calibration with either OLPF is interchangeable. That is to say, you DO NOT have to change black shading calibrations when changing OLPF's.

Exactly!

BUT I have discovered yesterday that the Dragon sensor is MUCH more sensible to calibration and it HUGELY benefits from a recent black shading done properly just before jobs.

I couldn't believe my eyes how much difference there were between a calibration done 2 weeks ago and one done in the morning just before the job!

SAME outside TEMP and HUMIDITY, same sensor and body temp (ie optimal), same firmware version, same EVERYTHING!

The image was just cleaner, with much finer, more even and nicer grain!

I think the slow aging of the sensor actually improves it! Like a wine...

Maybe it's just love he he...

To put it another way to me the LLO is more SONY and the STH is more KODAK and I do feel there is more gradable tonal range in the STH, esp in the highlights as to be expected.

Battistella

That's a GREAT way to summarize the difference, I like it David!

 

[Christoffer Glans]

I completely agree the LLO looks like Sony, no wonder I tend to not like it.

So, you don't like the look of Oblivion and Lucy? F65 has the best colors of any camera in my opinion.

 

[David Battistella]

For me LUCY was a bit too videoish looking. But that is just me. Eye popping sharp SONY colors, just the right look for some films. If I look at Gone Girl, there are a lot of images that just ooze emotion compared to LUCY which was "pretty" but not "filmic" at all. Again, just an opinion.

Battistella

 

[Phil Holland]

I've rather aggressively tested these OLPFs out "a lot" and very intimately.

My best way of summing things up in my mind is the Skin Tone - Highlight OLPF is more "film-like" than not, whereas the Low Light Optimized OLPF is a bit less so. This comes from directly comparing it to various Kodak stocks. There is also something a bit more film-like to the highlight roll-off of the STH OLPF.

There's no real right or wrong preference, only your preference and what you like. They have very subtle differences under proper shooting conditions that can be matched rather trivially and they are both calibrated to produce extremely similar color. The LLO produces an image that's about 1 to 1.3 stops cleaner when examined at the same ISO values.

 

[Björn Benckert]

I've rather aggressively tested these OLPFs out "a lot" and very intimately.

My best way of summing things up in my mind is the Skin Tone - Highlight OLPF is more "film-like" than not, whereas the Low Light Optimized OLPF is a bit less so. This comes from directly comparing it to various Kodak stocks. There is also something a bit more film-like to the highlight roll-off of the STH OLPF.

There's no real right or wrong preference, only your preference and what you like. They have very subtle differences under proper shooting conditions that can be matched rather trivially and they are both calibrated to produce extremely similar color. The LLO produces an image that's about 1 to 1.3 stops cleaner when examined at the same ISO values.

Agree,
I see it as the skin tone OLPF got room for nice dynamic rounding in the highlights and the lowlight OLPF got the same amount of room for dynamic rounding in the lowlight. But the sensor is linear so all that is color science, so the simple way of looking at it is that the skin tone OLPF hits the noise floor earlier than the lowlight OLPF. Then they of course also got slightly different character in terms of filtering, This is quite easy to see when looking at RGB separately. As I have not looked at these differences in a while I forgot which one is filtering what, but I guess this is quite visible in the images in this thread. I might be wrong or remember incorrectly but I think the skintone olpf cuts the red channel a bit harder / the color science in balancing that out which causing the digital gain in the red channel which is the underlaying factor that gives the artifacts that DEB is trying to sort out... But again I it was a while back I did my testings so I might be wrong. Phil, you know this better so please correct me if I´m wrong.