hmcindie

If your talking about DSLR's then the Sony a7s at aps-c mode in 60p is quite clean.

That's a weird attitude because A) it's not gonna be fixed and b ) the camera is already bought by people. So do you want more people to know about these issues or just sweep them under a rug and say : "It's not an issue for me!"? Yeah, it's not an issue for you. We got it. That's not helping.

The FS700 does the same. I have a bunch of shot footage where the 5d next to the FS700 looks better as the FS700 clipped a lot our led lights. Or is that the 5d is really, really good color wise and the Sony is just standard? Could be. I haven't used Panasonic cameras so I don't know if they have that issue but I have never heard about anyone else except Sony running into these things. Sony has always had problems with clipping highlights, my very old Sony HC1 HDV-cam tended to blow red's funnily, like with stop lights. They always went weirdly magenta before clipping, something that my as old Canon HV20 didn't do. Though that's like 10 years ago. I also thought it was weird how my Nex-5n always took worse photos than my Canon 7d, especially in clubbing situations. The LEDs tended to be blown out in the RAW files so I don't think it's something a white balance can easily fix. Though the 7d really did handle them better. This is also something that almost no photographer ever comments on. Everyone shares dxomark figures like crazy but real world actual flaws always tend to be hidden inside few posts in forums here and there.

There's a huge bunch of sharpening artifacts. That's how a lot of these older 2/3" cameras look. Highlights get blown up, no dynamic range at all, white outlines on sharp edges, halos etc.

That's not true as other Sony cams have the same problem. The older Nex-5n and the Nex-7 have the same issue and you don't need mega ISOs for it to show up. Why are people claiming that this is a low-light problem? Those blue leds will blow up completely on the A7s, regardless of ISO.

Every film I've seen when I was doing 35mm projecting was soft. Every. Single. One. They only looked "sharpish" when you watch them from way back. Anamorphicly shot films tended to be semi-sharp in the middle and completely soft on the sides. Even now, most really good looking films tend to be soft.

4k is cool. But I think there more important technologies to get first, like OLED. I would much rather watch OLED HD than regular LCD 4k or 8k. Especially with narrative films. That's why I always preferred 720p plasmas to the first 1080p LCD's.

It wasn't viable economically but plasmas as technology blew away LCD's. I guess you could say the same about mirrorless, they are indeed cheaper than DSLR's but I do consider DSLR's to be technically better than mirrorless cameras. Have you tried shooting birds with mirrorless cameras? You can get good shoots only if they are staying still. Even the a6000 which I guess has best phase detection on sensor technology yet, fails more in motion than DSLR's. Yeah for video they are not useful but they do move out of the way when shooting video so I don't see a big issue. It's a little issue made big by the echochamber of the internets. That's probably gonna change at some point but they said the same about plasma vs LCD and LCD's never actually got to plasmas level. OLED might do that though, if they ever get there. I'd rather have 1080p OLED than 4k LCD if that gets my blacks to the same level as the best plasmas.

There are several different topics here. One (that is absolutely awesome) is what the DSLR / Youtube craze started and that is the fact that anyone can make a compelling feature / short if they just have the know how. And the know how is out there. If you make something that millions of people will want to see, you will most likely get paid at least something. It's not really about the looks, it is about the content and if people don't get it then they will miss out on that market. You can always buy a camera and shoot scenery but until you take that step to really make something that you think people might wanna see, you wont get to the big bucks. Also these guys aren't really competing against one another in the sense that wedding videographers are. The client is basically everyone in the world and there's plenty of viewing time to go around, though people only give it to entertaining content. The other topic is low-end video productions. These will start to have a huge amount of competition and freelancing work will be more and more common. It's actually great for the low-end freelancers. If they do their job properly, there will be a constant demand as everyone wants to make videos with talented guys. It's not that good for people just starting out because there are a lot of pitfalls that experienced freelancers can get around. These pitfalls aren't apparent and you can't really find them out from the internet. Or you can but you won't realize most of them until you step into them. Think about compositing software. Anyone who just really puts their time into learning to work as a compositor will most likely find work. There is a huge demand for good compositors and that is because videos are being made more and more. And everyone wants to specialize and make their work better for the client. There is now also a huge demand for camera operators. So instead of putting up your own company and doing all that company shite, why not just freelance your way around for a while, just doing a specific thing? People who do it all are actually in less of a demand than people doing more specific work. People that are afraid of other people coming in with a better camera and getting the gig should be afraid. Not because someone has a better camera but because someone might be more talented or cheaper. It's a constant struggle but that's what doing business is. Luckily cameras are great equalizers now. Even the worst ones are now pretty damn good. Think about the drone business. When it started, the first ones made pretty good money. But now everyone has a drone, how are you going to specialize? If I get a big gig, I wouldn't just hire someone who is cheaper just because, I need to hire someone that is verifiably good. Bigger clients usually know this. Those that don't are mostly cheap clients and losing those is not always that big of a deal. p.s Is there anyone here who knows anything about locating IP addresses?

I shot a video with a loaned 1DC and I still haven't shot anything better on the A7s. A7s is fidgety. A7s does not have H265 (see how you constantly compare cameras like this? Mixing and matching to best fit? Like then you compare it to GH4 stills? Like seriously? GH4 is way worse in video than 1DC and you know it) Codec on the 1DC is still higher quality than the A7s internal codec. It's way less efficient but it's also way better looking. So you give Samsung and Sony a pass for being 8-bits but go nuts when Canon is 8-bits? How does that work? Yes, the price is ridiculous but let's call a horse a horse, not fake more negatives. You remind me of the tech writer Charlie Demerjian who hates Nvidia and basically every article he makes about GPU manufacturers always disses Nvidia.

Haven't I read this same thing about 1001x from EOSHD now? Everything on twitter from Andrew is pretty much the same too. Canon this, Canon that blaa blaa. I find it odd that EOSHD is constantly cherry picking stuff. Where was the furor over the shitty image quality of the FS100? (Good specs, shitty highlights, horrible compression) Where was the furor about GH3 being worse than GH2 for video? Not to mention the hyperbole. Just by glancing previous articles, they all seem very ridiculous. HUGE DIFFERENCE IN a6000!" (quality was the same as before). "Canon needs to get 10-bit or it's game over!" Then Sony releases 8-bit A7s and it's like: "8-bits is enough!" When Sony updates camera to "clean HDMI" EOSHD is like : "Sony updates camera wow!" When Canon does the same it's : "Canon is late to the game, no difference, who cares!" It seems very personal somehow. Maybe change the name of the site? I know hyperbole gets clicks but it still seems overly. So what? Now the Samsung is the camera to get? Do you get like paid everytime you plug something (there should be a disclaimer, you did mention that you talk to the teams of Panasonic and Samsung)?

This is really good! I've love to see a 1080p version as Vimeo default to 720p.

As someone who shoots with both, I'd say DON'T SELL YOUR 5D, especially if you are asking does the A7s grade easily! Don't be a victim to the hype. 5D RAW is the best image you can get from a DSLR at the moment. A7s has the BEST lowlight you can get at the moment. But the 5d RAW is actually second best in lowlight when using RAW so it's not far away. Really denoises well. Also the tools get better and better. I just re-debayered a bunch of 5d raw stuff that was shot a year ago as they got stripe correction in so the shadows are a lot cleaner now. You asked about grading? The A7s is not nearly as good in grading then the 5d raw. You will never push the files as well as you can a RAW image. Also s-log can be a biaatch to match colors around. A7s has great attributes. But it also has minuses. That is a considerably worse rolling shutter in fullframe mode. The dynamic range boost in S-LOG isn't as dramatic as you think as the dynamic range is mostly in the highlights. Shadows get noisy real fast. But it does give a beautiful high-end look, especially in bright sunlit areas. The cropmodes on the a7s are great though, excellent for shooting fast with one lens. I use the A7s for quick shootings and fast turnarounds, both 5d and a7s for all my personal and bigger projects. I may sell the A7s when a suitable A7s II arrives but I will never sell the 5d (never say never though). All of my best looking stuff has been shot with the 5d and I haven't gotten any really good looking stuff with the A7s yet but I think I might get someday. Also I am now very comfortable with the 5d raw workflow. If you do this for a living, think about the FS7. It really looks good, haven't used one though. If you don't, then just use what feels good and carry with you.

1: a7s is too small, I much prefer the 5d size and ergonomics to the a7s (for video shooting) 2: But the brightness is all wonky, 5d has a better back lcd in terms of color accuracy and for assessment of exposure. On the a7s it's way more difficult to see when something is underexposed. Histogram is pretty much a must have. Using the EVF means going handheld which means shaky shit. 3: Adapting any lenses is a great plus. 4: Magic Lantern and suddenly you have even more on your DSLR. I'm not buying this mirrorless craze except for cameras in the size of the Sony a5100 (those are great cams because you can almost fit them into a pocket with a pancake lens)

This was made for the Sony FS7 competition. It came out so odd, that I thought it fits here perfectly! Shot with the Sony a7s and 5dmarkIII

I'd really love to see C500 shot RAW images next to the Alexa RAW and play with the files.

:D

Also a + : NO 3D GLASSES! YAY!

Maybe the rocket ship was because of fuel? I don't know, it is out-of-place but I still love that taking off scene. None of them had 2 times earth gravity? I thought the most was 30% more.

Depends on your level of quality need. If I would be a high budget director/dop I would never use the A7s with internal footage. It would have to be with an outside recorder, just to get rid of the compression. If I'm a low-budget music video director, I wouldn't give a damn and just shoot with it. C100/C300 are the only cams that make really detailed 1080p at the moment (And C100 has the horrible AVCHD), A7s/GH4 are quite close but can't match it completely. So if you want better you need to shoot 4k and scale it down.

Hollywood also has loads of budget and crews, are you gonna try to replicate them in everything you do, or do it your own way? Besides, a 50mm f1.2 isn't even that extreme of DoF or am I just a crazy good focus puller? I get it that with film it's crazy but nowadays we can see so easily what we are shooting and where the focus is with focus assist monitors that it isn't even that difficult or crazy. I've been doing Brenizer style photoshoots to even get mooore blurry blurs than the 200mm f2.8 gives me with the 5d so you can always have a bigger sensor. Complaints like that always sound to me like someone just saw a shitty homevideo with the 5d (completely ignoring all the shitty homevideos with m4/3 sensors) and then thinking the shittyness is because of the dof. Are you gonna throw your dolly in the bin if you see a shortfilm with nothing but shitty dollyshots?

Yes, they would look 100% the same (considering that both lenses would have the same distortion characteristics) The problem is that it's quite difficult to find those same lenses at the same prices. To get that look is easier with a 5d/a7/d800 and photography lenses than an s35mm sensor and cinemalenses because those cost big bucks compared.

That's what they tell us. It would be so funny if the A7II actually looked just as good. Marketing of new electronics can be full of little white lies. Remember how the D810 improved the video with the same 36mpix sensor? Yup, how's that possible?

Oh and one thing about sharpness, even though Hollywood types like to shoot 4k and beyond, they don't actually like sharpness. As quoted by this David Fincher DoP Jeff Cronenweth: "I had never seen anything that clean and crisp and steady. I remember I told Harris that afterwards, and his response was: “I was afraid of that.†"I saw Gone Girl in 2K, and I was totally fine with it because you couldn’t see as many of the human flaws as you do in 4K." "And it (film) was so remarkably soft. It was incredible to see the two side by side. What the standard was for us for the last 75 or 80 years looked so out of focus. But if you sat there for 20 minutes and watched it, you’d get into it, and you’d think it was beautiful, and you’d appreciate the nuances, and people look great. There you go." Full article: http://filmmakermagazine.com/88054-cinematographer-jeff-cronenweth-on-gone-girl-digital-and-working-with-david-fincher/#.VG2-aIusV8F

Am I the only one here who really enjoyed Interstellar? First half was excellent, five star material. Middle dipped down a bit and the end got strong again. There were lots of issues here and there with dialogue mostly but I can let those issues go as it really does one thing well: Space. Space hasn't felt this big and dangerous in a long ass while. As a Kerbal player, the exploded docking scene was excellent. I'd give the film one thousand stars just for the launch / docking sequences. Comparisons to 2001 are weird. 2001 is a slowly moving film that's loved by film criticis. But I tried to rewatch it some time ago and it's quite ... I don't want to use the word bad ... but it's not very good. 2001 has EXCELLENT scenes here and there but as a whole it leaves me cold. Interstellar is more like Contact anyways, atleast themes wise. Gone Girl was really good but it was still quite basic. Lots of good stuff about marriage, media and who controls the Truth (and do we even care), but it was still a basic thriller. Interstellar aimed a lot higher and though it stumbled enough to be just a "good" film, that was enough for me. And the sound mix was crazy good! Atleast in the theater I went to. But Nightcrawler, that film was excellent. It should especially fit into this board as it features videographers and psycopaths :)