why do you expect a raw converter A to match a raw converter B ? sometimes they may produce a similar output, sometimes they don't...
and you raw file is severely underexposed - you can use rawdigger or FRV to see that it is ~5+ EV to any meaninful clipping in raw channels... that is a lot... so do not blame Adobe, blame your exposure.
Please read through the entire bug and attempt the repro steps to understand the problem. On the A7S camera itself and through the native RAW viewer from Sony, the file is properly exposed. Bridge and Lightroom upon import when attempting the render the file's thumbnail actually shows the file as expected, then renders a second thumbnail which shows up super dark; like you saw when loading the file yourself.
The A7S has a mode in which you can shoot RAW + S-LOG2 format. In this format the lowest ISO setting is 3200. From there you set your desired exposure which on camera reads -0- which the specific shutter and aperture settings selected.
I've tried this with several shoots, numerous timelapses and upon import into Bridge or LR, the result is the same. So, definitely not blaming Adobe arbitrarily, as a multi-decade career engineer I conduct multiple tests under multiple environments over several weeks to identify the repro. Theres some additional data that is stored in the S-LOG2 gamut file that the Adobe RAW reader cannot load. The native Sony read CAN. The conjunction of the two produces an image with immense dynamic range. It's not a converter A to B with a small skew and variance of output, it's a new format all together that the RAW editor cannot parse or fully interpret.
Just for your personal edification, take a look at the A:B between the native loader and Adobe Camera RAW. You can see the native loader shows the file as intended, based upon the grey-point based SLOG-2 gamut. This format is proprietary to the Sony camera system, so I may not be able to have LR/Bridge/RAW ever read this file format as intended.
> On the A7S camera itself and through the native RAW viewer from Sony, the file is properly exposed.
please download a proper tool - rawdigger ( RawDigger: Raw Image Analyzer | RawDigger ) or FRV (About | FastRawViewer) and study how did you saturate raw channels in that shot, Sony does not have a native raw viewer (it has converter, which applies a lot of adjustments behind the scenes)... what some other OEM raw converters (in camera's firmware for example) do to increase the brightness, suppress noise, etc is irrelevant - you expose your raw for the specific raw converter you intend to use with its capabilities in mind, if you intend to use ACR/LR then you shall expose the way they can work with the file (and that means that ACR/LR are not going to understand all of the settings that you used for camjpeg, that OEM raw converter might be able to use to do a lot of hidden adjustments)... ACR/LR do not repeat the conversion that OEM raw converter does, at best Adobe supplies some profiles that might be close to imitating colors (but w/o light what kind of colors you are talking here - again, your shot is severly underexposed).
> Just for your personal edification,
for your personal benefit take a look at raw histogram in rawdigger ... trial is free
> heres some additional data that is stored in the S-LOG2 gamut file that the Adobe RAW reader cannot load. The native Sony read CAN.
yes, it is known for eons (since the beginning of digital photography era and when first 3rd party raw converters appeared) that 3rd party raw convertes (like ACR/LR) in this case do not interpret most of camjpeg parameters that OEM converters will... so why are your surprised that ACR/LR do not reproduce OEM raw converter conversion is surprising by itself.
Had no clue for eons that Adobe RAW could not read the proprietary gamuts. I figured for as much money as I pay for the creative suite, Adobe would continue to knock it the hell out the box with their capabilities as they have been known to do. This including working with OEM's to get their technology's feature sets fully realised in their amazing digital photography suites.
Regarding the A:B i shared, you are correct it is underexposed (purposely by 1 stop). What had mattered the most was getting the flat grey base image to do my bidding with. Overexposing (in relation to my camera) won't solve the issue, as the proprietary gamut curve set in mode PP7 still won't be loaded. I can still use Image Data Convertor 4 that came with my A7S to modify the proprietary settings that Adobe RAW cannot load; I just lose the capability of performing these edits in batch for a several hundred frame time-lapse. In another thread, I've gotten a response from an Adobe rep that mentioned modes like Nikon's Auto Dynamic Lighting (ADL) and Canon's Highlight Tone Priority (HTP) cannot be interpreted by the RAW reader as they proprietary. I've provided the Adobe rep with some more files for their own analysis and I'll be doing an outreach to Sony to drive this conversation further.
Thanks for your insight into those tools; it won't be necessary for me to use them, due to the above findings from Adobe Engineering.
> Had no clue for eons that Adobe RAW could not read the proprietary gamuts.
if you have a color space profile for your intended gamut then ACR can at least convert on output to that gamut
> his including working with OEM's to get their technology's feature sets fully realised in their amazing digital photography suites.
S-LOG2 is not helpful at all if you are not doing video (or may be shooting camjpeg) but rather shooting raw for stills - the mere example of how you undersaturated your exposure is a beautiful example...
> (purposely by 1 stop)
by 5 at least - again please use tools that can actually show the raw data ... there is a bright(est) object at the bottom of the frame, use raw digger and see the raw data for a small selection within that object ... raw data for a green channel(s) is ~1200 max and way less for blue/red channels ... that alone gives you an idea how severely the shot is underexposed, because this object is totally irrelevant (has no meaning in the picture) and you can expose more to clip it, at least again in green channel(s), in raw w/o any issues (hence 5+ EV underexposure) for the end result
PS: if there a valid reasons to underexpose - for example you have to keep the exposure time within certain limits then it is a different story - then you just need to push in raw conversion, use a lot of NR and possible use your own curve in ACR/LR (and/or in DCP camera profile) to deal with brightness during raw conversion... but no S-LOG2 trickery will change what is in the raw file, ACR/LR just were more close to the real situation with the data than OEM raw converter, that's it...
In my research, over the past few months I came across the following blog which has some pretty good insight into S-Log2 format and shooting on the A7S. Granted its for video, it should cover some of the points you've brought up. In general it's a great read. When Adobe engineering is complete with their investigation, i'll circle back here and share their findings. It's an interesting topic overall.
Any update to your findings BosleyBeats? I'm very much curious about the same issue regading LR. I don't want to have to switch picture profiles when shooting video in the field. it would be nice to get the sLog2 or slog3 gamma curves read accurately in LR. on initial import LR CC 2015 sees the gamma curve properly but once i click on the image it adds severe contrast and darkens the image. I had the a7s 1st gen and now the mkii. I'm primarily a video guy but still take a ton of stills and would love to get the added benefit of the gamma curve for stills. very frustrating that there is no develop preset or camera calibration that can be added to the LR plugins, atleast none that i'm aware of. I guess i could make one that matches the thumbnail and then save that for ingest?