Axel

I agree. And have you seen the filmlike noise in the shadows? I am curious if it was shot in raw. BTW: Can you say filmlike? Or is this an exclusively german anglicism?

The tramp reminded me of the album cover of one of my favorite bands: How did you find that guy?

It's a pity I can't see it. Instead this: "Unfortunately, this video is not available in Germany, because it may contain music that we couldn't yet clear with GEMA" (German society for music copyright) Tried stealthy in Firefox, but it's connecting for minutes now. And I thought China had restrictive internet laws ...

O.K., but 10-bit and 4:2:2 together are already seven league boots compared to ... (you know)

It is: Raw 3.1, 60fps in 4608×2592. The comments on the *slight* magenta cast cause worrying: is that IR-pollution or *just* the filmmakers inability to grade? Unbelievable. Well, for all practical purposes, I don't see the advantages over ProResHD so far. Even, as one has pointed out, the obvious advantage over the much cheaper 4k version ...

Even the A7si had no issue with resolution. This has to be acknowledged, these images are pristine, and it's a matter of personal taste if one prefers a softer look. Which, by the way, can easily be done in post. Again I recommend the Tiffen Dfx collection (digital filters), that imo completely outperform any glass filters such as Hollywood Black Magic. Because you can very subtly limit their range or strength. Had this been my video (it would be shaky ), I had made it softer in post. But the thing is, you can soften in post, but in order to preserve the impression of high resolution at high resolution (meaning bigger images for the viewer) you must never sharpen in post. That means for an image to be soft and beautiful, you need real resolution. That's where the Sony delivers. The colors and the DR are acceptable if you accept them as the Sony look. Videoish and aseptic, but not noticeably off. It's just that you don't think you can smell the fish or the paella, that you see the blue sky shine or that you see more but a representation of human skin. You'd call this very good video.

Complex thing. Has to do with viewing habits, film language, a balance between static (landscape, portrait) and dynamic (action) images. Will eventually change, but not over night.

??? Okay, he must have been in a DOGMA mode then testing the A7s. Perhaps I suffer so hard because I know that THESE colors are in the world. My Sony buddy said, don't know what you mean. Looks the same to me ?⚡️?☔️? Best luck, I will also suggest more tests.

Not the best camera operator here, but we are getting closer colorwise: ... at least for the skin. Though a little flat and undersaturated, the milk box and the sugar bag look weird (but I am not familiar with the brands). Does anybody remember Andrew Reids 'WB shift' solution for the yellowish GH2 skintones? The skin looked better, but royal blue became dark cyan and Coca Cola labels became magenta. These things shouldn't be left to the customers. They should be top priority for Sony.

Again: > LOG is a profile meant to optimize the dynamic range. > It doesn't free you from setting WB*¹ and to expose correctly*² *1: actually, setting WB to daylight or tungsten should suffice. *2: more so for LOG! > You do not need a LUT to grade it, but if the manufacturer provides the LUT (and given you set WB and exposure!) the image must already have perfectly neutral colors. And why wouldn't it? Don Kotlos answers: YES! Show me a test that changed this part of the equation (a thing that Sony could and should have done) and where someone made the colors on par with Canon! Now it's time to say something positive to prove I'm not a hater. I like Sony colors more than JVC's.

This simple, elegant workflow makes this small and lightweight camera the ideal companion wherever you go.

Thank's Oliver. You are right, and I think everybody made his point. I just wanted to say to richg101, that I too liked his misty-morning-clip and that I didn't mean to sound like an asshole.

You are right. I apologize. Please, don't take this personally.

Only ~14% were shot with the 65mm Alexa, the rest was "blown up". At first I thought, were is the dislike-button. Then I reconsidered. 4k is best for UHD-TV. And for docs. What people rightfully hated the The Hobbit for was not the cleanness of the images. Every action looked speeded up and lame at the same time, because motion blur at 24fps accentuates momentum.

You've got to be joking. This is not just about the Vimeo compression. It is that richg101 shot a video not in LOG but with a steep curve (Natural) that holds 8-9 stops of DR at best (that is, if you not deliberately cut off highlights and shadows before recording and bake this into the 8-bit file). Now I told you I was pretty numb regarding judder. But you must be regarding color if you label this fucking beautiful. The posterization effect on the skin - and everywhere - has little to do with low data rate, richg101 has thinned out the already poor color palette even further. The child's eyes, cheeks, nose, neck, the woman's hair and shirt, in short: everything looks terrible, worse than SD-video from my 2002 VX2000 (Yes, it was a SONY!). Matthias Burling wrote: Any solution must come from this direction. But just looking at first impressions of the profile in action ...

As I wrote, I can't download the original clip, and I won't download a threadbare vimeo compressed file from the cache to grade it. And I wouldn't apply a LUT, since it's not slog anyway. And using LUTs has nothing to do with addiction. I hope you don't try to describe me. I am willing to spend a lot of extra time for a better image, but if the camera is inferior and the results remain worse than what can be achieved with others - if used as advertised and intended - then screw it. EDIT: Just download the clip right now ... EDIT: Nothing was downloaded. And the download-button disappeared, only share is still there.

It wouldn't help you, because richg101 is wrong. A log recording must be perfectly *developed* by the corresponding, official lut. If you don't see sound colors in Catalyst Browse, then they don't exist, and they can't be produced by even the most elaborate node tree . Especially if it's 8-bit you're dealing with.

You can't tell what was A7 and what RX10 or GoPro. Aside from that, Li doesn't seem to care. As a filmmaker he is rather an editor. He tries to get shots that fit into emotional sequences or montages (as he explains in an interview). Only video nerds like us see those things anyway.

I like this clip. If it was meant to show a misty morning. But I know you shot flat. I never downloaded from Vimeo, I only sometimes saw a download button, but not in this case. Help me out (Plus user). If I had the original file, I could import it into Resolve and apply the Slog_2 lut there. Why? I only ever developed b&w film (both 35mm stills and 16mm film) privately, but I professionally made manual prints in color and b&w in the darkroom. All development processes are standardized, also the filters you need to use for the different stocks and papers, analog luts if you will. If the appropriate lut doesn't result in neutral, but perfectly rich skintones, then you will never be able to restore them even if you happen to be the world's most talented and experienced colorist. This is no wizardry. EDIT: I only just now read your info text beneath the video: Now I'm all the more curious.

Why not? We did this for XH-A1 and for EX-3, the latter having been found by a BBC engineer. Compared to which every Sony profile was really ugly. You don't need to download anything, it's just a short list of values.

I agree with Don Kotloss and at the same time with you. One can indeed change the 'color science' in detail, but obviously that can only be done by a somewhat scientific approach with color charts, scopes and what have you - and still implies personal taste. If you happen to know of anyone who made a decent custom profile, please link to it. What I found so far makes the colors only worse. I am particularly pissed if people tell me why, I like the colors as they are (like my friend does, who actually owns all 'my' cameras now). You don't have to use a creative style like Autumn Leaves (good compromise, at least for A7s), you can also find the right colors with SLog2 + 3, with Luts and grading skills, see this: Now you may think, what are these idiots talking about? This is perfectly fine video. Where are the allegedly bad skintones, where are the RS artifacts or poor cadence? The guy has managed to work around these things. And given all the effort put into this grading (who said raw was a hassle?), the skin tones, though looking appropriate at first glance, aren't good at all. There are very few nuances captured here. All people have the same SD-like color. User cantsin has pointed this out, comparing this clip with another one from the same filmmaker, but shot wit BMPCC.

I do, although it doesn't bother me much. amsh already stated that he was up to every trick, knew about shutter speeds, pan speeds, the effect of OIS lenses on tripods (and the like), and that he just compared the A7r to other cameras in this regard. There is another factor to be considered here: in-camera sharpening. If you pan i.e. over a bookshelf, it sometimes contradicts the appropriate motion blur needed to soften the thin vertical lines. A friend with his 5DMiii complained about this one day, and I saw the judder then too. We changed a lot of parameters to get rid of it, and it disappeared once he dialed down sharpness. You know, with all those compression algorithms applied to the consumer codecs to make the image look acceptable, there are more hidden hazards than advantages. Just remember that skin-softening issue with Sony cams.

There is. Because a color range is baked into a highly compressed file. You can't invent more nuances for - typically - skin in mighty Resolve, if they're not stored by the camera. I agree. However, some cameras obviously have more issues with RS artifacts or motion judder than others. So by definition of quality (the degree to which certain properties fulfill pre-defined requirements) .... This seems to be lamenting on very high levels, but particularly the colors (apart from the grading in this) aren't worth mentioning here. Again, in comparison to how the competitors had performed.

Pffff. I hate most pans because people don't know how to pan. Some made beautiful, breathtaking pans in 24p @ 180° shutter decades ago. If XAVC couldn't provide bandwidth for a pan, that was the joke of the century. Wise, but what does this tell about the video quality of a camera? A very simple way to smudge ugly judder is to monitor your video on a Sony Bravia with motion optimization ON.

I have the D3300, body only threehundredsomething. Awful, almost no way to control video parameters. But quite nice colors. Don't know about motion. Because, as I confessed, I have no eye for that. Had been a projectionist too long and find 12fps more pleasing than 48 ....