jcs

The FS7 is impressive against the C300. The A7S also does well against the two much more expensive cameras. The cameras look to be very close in many shots- color differences can be matched with a little more work. In some shots, the FS7 with the F5(?) sensor has a richer, more pro look. 4K 10-bit 422 XAVC (internal) with up to 180fps and improved skin tones (for Sony) checks a lot of feature boxes for the FS7. Compare the $8000 (new) FS7 to the ~$7000 (used) 1DC. The 1DC has a very filmic look (1.3 crop)- perhaps the FS7 with a SpeedBooster (1.1 crop, +$600) will compete well. Gotta thank Canon for setting the bar so high- Sony's catching up. If the FS7 holds compelling skin tones through various lighting conditions, Canon's advantage is minimized to lenses (Canon lenses on Sony bodies can't autofocus, for example (MB autofocus is slow and unreliable)). Looking forward to seeing a test against the FS700 to see just how far Sony has come with skin tones (I only use the FS700 for 120-240fps slomo at this point). I'm getting close to matching the A7S with 5D3 RAW for skin tones under tungsten light. 5D3 RAW IMO produces better skin tones than the C300 (to be fair, I've never used the C300- only comparing video online). In the test above, the A7S does pretty well against the C300 and FS7 for skin tones. As in the video, I've also had good luck with A7S PP4 (tweaked) for skin tones.

​ML RAW on the 5D3 provides options for full frame, a 3X zoom/crop mode, anamorphic modes, and a whole range of cinema crop modes (2.39:1 etc.).

Hi Ed- dig the camera work, editing, VO and writing. The desaturated look goes well with the narrative (though perhaps I'd use more color pop in the country to go with the emotion of the narrative and the Technicolor comment. Technicolor is ultra saturated and has a painted look at the same time. Perhaps possible to emulate with Resolve: http://www.mynahmedia.com/2013/01/3-strip-technicolor-look-in-davinci-resolve/ ).

While I agree a softer 4K (to a point) can look more filmic, it's better to start with a detailed image, then have the option to run a filter or blur in post. The 1DC 4K footage looks a bit soft from what I've seen online so far. The GH4 looks more detailed than the 5K Red Epic in this test. The difference is so high that it doesn't look like any post sharpening will get it looking like the GH4. High amounts of sharpening will produce artifacts, hurting the filmic look. If you have examples showing the 1DC out-detailing the GH4, it would be insightful to see. In your quick test it looks like you got the same results for DR on 5D3 RAW vs 1DC as others have noted (e.g. 12 vs 11, 1-stop more for the 5D3). http://www.eoshd.com/2013/05/canon-1d-c-vs-5d-mark-iii-raw-and-c300-gh2-resolution-comparison/

Canon could cash in by creating an app store. They could sell apps internally or open an SDK for third party developers and take a percentage, as Apple does with iOS. RAW and/or advanced tools/effects could then be offered for additional revenue. Sony has an app store for the A7S (primitive at this stage but a good sign for the future).

The A7S files indeed aren't tiny at 4K, however they are smaller and don't require transcoding as with the 1DC. The HD files are tiny, and that's also where Cinema5D likely made their test. Have you compared internal Slog2 to external for DR for the A7S? If my prior posts haven't been clear, I prefer Canon due to superior color and skin tones vs. Sony. However, this has not biased my opinion and in all fairness, in the tests presented so far and evidence from around the internet, the A7S has more usable DR than the 1DC. Happy to agree to disagree until there's test charts or visible evidence to the contrary. When I tested 5D3 RAW DNGs in PPro against AE+ACR against mlrawviewer's ProRes444 10-bit files, I was surprised how clean the output was and how good the color looked with mlrawviewer vs. the other two methods. If 4K is the goal, the GH4 is quite the deal with 100Mbit/s files, usable DR, usable lowlight, and more detail vs. the 1DC. If I had the choice for a production, I might chose the 1DC, however the GH4 is more relevant for most consumers.

The A7S's HDMI 4K doesn't appear to have the same processing as internal XAVC-S. Slog2 must be tweaked (but can be fixed apparently), and noise reduction must be applied in post (perhaps the A7S hardware can't handle NR at 4K). The 1DC isn't full frame in 4K- it's 1.3x crop- the A7S is full frame. The 1DC files are huge and apparently require transcoding before editing. The A7S files are tiny and don't need transcoding. Different cameras, different uses and price points. Your readers might appreciate a Xyla-21 chart test, which would be useful for all camera tests moving forward. Artistically, the difference in DR between the A7S and 1DC isn't why one would chose one camera over the other. In my recent tests I have found the output of the latest version of mlrawviewer to ProRes444 10-bit to look amazingly good. It has a really nice browser and can process clips reasonably easily directly from the CF card after quickly setting WB and in/out points (if desired). Comparing 5D3 RAW from mlrawviewer ProRes444 10-bit to 1DC would be an interesting test in terms of usable DR and color fidelity (full frame, S35 mode, and 4K downscaled). Given that the 5D3 has about the same (better?) DR vs. the 1DC and has Canon colors at 10-bit 444 vs. the 1DC's MJPEG-compressed 422 8-bit, I would expect the 5D3 to perform better in post.

Andrew- we presented evidence and test results from around the internet: it appears you didn't even look at the results and dismissed our posts out of hand. Even Adam Wilt only measured 11 usable stops for the 1DC. Most forums seem to agree that the A7S is really only 12 usable stops. Canon rates the 1DC at 12 stops. Sony rates the A7S at 15. Clearly Canon is being more honest and Sony is exaggerating, however in this case in the real world (vs just lab tests where the A7S does much better), the A7S is better than the 1DC in DR (mostly in the shadows). While I am a Canon fan, I have nothing to prove. The A7S is a challenging camera, however it's a useful tool which can be improved with the right techniques. I worked with your examples to see if your claim that the 1DC provides better DR than the A7S out of curiosity. Debate, when kept civil, is fun and entertaining. If the other party isn't responding in a productive way, progress isn't made. If we post images and links to other sites corroborating our test results, and your reply simply implies that we're blind, there's nothing else to say (other than to stop participating or to join in the absurdity with jokes). Why not pick up a Xyla 21 test chart and do these tests yourself if you don't agree with them- it's part of the scientific method: http://***URL not allowed***/dynamic-range-sony-a7s-vs-arri-amira-canon-c300-5d-mark-iii-1dc-panasonic-gh4/

While potentially unfortunate, it's pretty simple folks. If Canon releases a crappy 5D4, vote with your wallet and don't buy it. It's one of the reasons I spend so much time learning how to make the GH4 and A7S work well. If we collectively can help each other figure out how to make skin tones, for example, competitive using the GH4 and A7S, the 5D4 becomes less relevant. While I hope that Canon releases a decent 5D4 (for video), if they don't we're not blocked as there are other great options out there. The mass market is where the big money is, so a great 5D4 will make them the most money. Their analytics may show that the 5D4's primary market is for stills, and that they'll lose money from the much smaller professional market if they provide all the features video/filmmakers are looking for in the 5D4. Everyone at all levels is sensitive to cost. We're living in a world of "good enough", especially for video/film production. The GH4, A7S, D750/810, etc. are all good enough. Competition and sharing our knowledge how to get the most from our gear will offset any reliance on any one camera manufacturer.

Wait a second, is this a trap? How does that saying go? "Never argue with an idiot. They'll drag you down to their level and beat you with experience". http://www.goodreads.com/quotes/tag/idiots It's going to be major turmoil around here if Canon releases a 5D4 with all the features you want!

A while ago EOSHD had dissolved into a non-productive confrontational forum. Other forums bashed EOSHD and personally insulted Andrew Reid. I suggested to Andrew (as did others) that he use moderators to help clean up the forum: http://www.eoshd.com/comments/topic/5456-potential-changes-to-the-forum-to-prioritise-good-content-suggestions-welcome/?page=3. I was a moderator at Cinema5D but stopped going there after it moved to Planet5D and died (I made it clear I didn't have time to be a moderator again). Politely challenging someone with facts and logic and focusing on what is being discussed is not confrontational. It's how we learn and grow. I learn a great deal doing research in these discussions. I share the results with everyone. When one runs out of facts or logic, many times they turn to emotion and begin personal attacks. In debate, this is called ad hominem, and is an instant fail. When the site owner is participating in ad hominems with antagonistic and confrontational interactions, that sends the wrong message to the rest of the moderation team, and also encourages members to exhibit the same behavior. Leading by example is important. Is this post confrontational? It's critical and fair given what has transpired in this thread. Perhaps the current moderation team doesn't have time to help out. If Ebrahim has time, I think he'd make a great moderator. Perhaps there are others.

Most people online are looking to learn something new. At one point I focussed on resolution and detail, then sound, lighting, story and script writing, legal/IP, editing/post, advertising, etc. This thread is titled,"The Skin Tone Holy Grail". It implies learning about what are great skin tones and how to achieve them. While it is reasonable to point out that certain cameras have better or worse skin tones, the spirit of the thread is to learn 1) what are great skin tones and 2) how to achieve them for various cameras and conditions. Many posts are argumentative for the sake of argument and ego and don't contribute anything significant to learning how to achieve great skin tones. To be more productive, this forum could use moderation. That would start with no more antagonistc posts by the site owner, who leads by example, and by said site owner to maintain etiquette and politely keep threads on topic when they dissolve into unproductive arguments.

For video, Canon rates the 1DC at 12 stops. Sony rates the A7S at 15 stops. In lab conditions with the Xyla 21 chart, the 1DC gets around 12 and the A7S around 14. For useable DR Samuel and MacGregor got 12 for the A7S and by their metric of useable DR would expect the 1DC to be 11 stops (dropping 1-2 stops measured for useable DR). Asking us to look at your examples without modifying them to explore useable DR doesn't make sense, as we'd most certainly make changes for any real work. Even so, your examples generally show more useable DR with the A7S. Comments that imply our eyes don't work are unprofessional, immature, and antagonistic. If you'd like to create drama for page views vs. an honest search for truth, wherever it may lead, how can we take anything you say seriously?

​Tupp- folks shooting charts/wedges get 12-14 stops for the A7S, and typically ~12 stops for the 1DC: http://***URL not allowed***/dynamic-range-sony-a7s-vs-arri-amira-canon-c300-5d-mark-iii-1dc-panasonic-gh4/ Cinema5D's results are controversial, however they used a very high end Xlya 21 self-LED-lit chart in total darkness. Samuel Hurtado gets 12 stops with SLog2 for the A7S: http://www.dvxuser.com/V6/showthread.php?331924-slog2-8-bits-in-14-stops, with his main point all those stops are useable (vs. other cameras). MacGregor measured about the same using CINE4. It would appear the A7S has more DR in the shadows, and about the same or slightly more DR in the highlights vs. the 1DC (based on Andrew's example images). A7S via HDMI must be denoised in post (unlike the 1DC which is still doing NR with settings on "off"). araucaria- it's well known that SGamut in Slog2 on the A7S is best avoided, and instead use Pro or Cinema to provide much better color performance. Slog3/Sgamut3 work much better (FS7 and above). The 1DC produces a superior film-style image, especially in color and skin tones vs. the A7S. The A7S provides significantly more detail and more dynamic range. Canon 5D3 RAW produces even better color than the 1DC and about the same DR. For delivering (softish/filmic) 4K content, the 1DC is a very nice camera. When there's good light, the GH4 is excellent too. For 1080p delivery, 5D3 RAW is still the best deal for those wanting something full frame and filmic. I'm currently experimenting with 5D3 RAW to DNG (mlrawviewer), directly into PPro then after WB and basic adjustments back out to XAVC for editing (then archiving the MLV or deleting it). It sounds like 1DC MJPEGs need to be transcoded, so 5D3 RAW isn't much more work and will provide 14-bit color (and 10-bit 422 XAVC/ProRes/DNxHD if transcoding). Also testing the A7S to see if skin tones and a nice filmic look can be derived to look nearly as good as 5D3 RAW (much smaller files, more usable DR, more detail). When a camera is as sharp as the A7S, we can use a lens filter (have a Tiffen Promist on order) or blur in post. To get the most from the A7S, one profile is needed for low light, and another for bright light (perhaps even more for best results). You'll find what works for you with a bit of testing.

​Fair enough, with your eyes! Kindly gaze at the image below and look carefully at the red arrows and describe the features which look more visible on the 1DC vs. the A7S. I used your example image, so it's fair game- other images aren't relevant for this discussion. Here's what I see, arrows left to right, top to bottom: The lettering and detail is much clearer for the A7S, the 1DC is barely visible.The white letters/marks for the lens info are pretty much invisible on the 1DC and two large white elements and smaller white elements are visible on the A7S.Lettering and detail more visible on the A7S.The stain is much more visible on the A7S.bezerk55 processed the image completely differently, and the results are clear there as well: the A7S has more DR in this image than the 1DC. That's two perceivers to one seeing the A7S having more DR in this test image. Any others? This doesn't need to be an argument- it's a puzzle to be solved, a search for truth. If we focus on the search for truth and leave out confrontational and antagonistic language, we can all learn something new without argument. We can save the drama for our scripts

How are you determining the extra stop advantage for the 1DC? It's clear the A7S isn't doing much (any?) NR for HDMI 4K, so it's necessary to use NR in post. Did you see bezerk55's example? He followed the instructions on how to fix the A7S HDMI Slog2 in post. The 1DC and A7S image match fairly well and it's clear the A7S has more DR in both shadows and highlights. What comes out of the camera/recorder is less important than how far you can push it in post. When pushed to the limit in post, the example I created shows clearly more detail in the shadows and highlights. On the leftmost image pair, the 1DC completely loses detail in the white Canon lens (70-200?). There's nothing that can be done to the 1DC image to bring out more detail. The highlights are closer, but the A7S recovers more blown-out area.

The MB NEX to EF IV allows changing the aperture in video mode. Only major bug found is that when changing lenses between the 24-105 F4L and 50 1.4, the camera sometimes crashes (shows a black screen). I have to remove the battery a few times (camera on) before it starts working (I think changing lenses with power on might also work). If you need to effectively change exposure during certain shots, auto ISO works well as it's very smooth.

Hey Andrew, I'm not seeing a 1DC DR advantage in your test image: I've marked a few areas where to my eye there's a lot more detail/SNR in the A7S shot vs. the 1DC. There's also purple chromatic aberration on the edge of the light and on the specular edge of the silver camera ring for the 1DC but not the A7S. I'm sure the 1DC is a better overall camera, especially skin tones, however it appears the A7S has more usable DR.

toxotis70- http://www.4kshooters.net/2014/11/14/crazy-un-scientific-fatal-four-way-shootout-canon-5d-mark-iii-vs-gh4-vs-sony-a7s-vs-canon-eos-c100/ , https://vimeo.com/72566458. There's more out there... Tim- that's the pattern I found with lots of research too. Alexa > Dragon/Epic > F55. Here Shane tests the Blackmagic URSA: http://www.hurlbutvisuals.com/blog/2014/12/blackmagic-4k-ursa-tests-part-1/. In the IR tests, actress Eli Jane's skin tones look good, however the background sky, specular highlights, and the white lines in the parking lot are all too magenta: A quick try at fixing the background while preserving the skin tones: Interestingly, while the skin tones changed (global changes: didn't use any masking), they look more natural for the lighting conditions.

​Sony colors are indeed challenging, however don't you agree that for this test the A7S has more usable DR? It appears the A7S doesn't apply NR over HDMI, so unlike the internal NR of the 1DC, the A7S will need NR in post.

If only one lens for the A7S, the Sony SEL18200 (18-200mm F3.5-6.3) is excellent. Autofocus, IS, complete zoom range for just about every shot. If zooming while shooting, auto ISO works well. F3.5-6.3 isn't an issue as the camera works well at higher ISOs. Here's what the A7S+SEL18200 looks like in low light, with many different light colors, at 1080p60 (slowed to 24p in post). This is an APS-C lens, so not full frame, however this works well for handheld as rolling shutter is reduced. For full frame and shallower DOF, the Canon 24-105 F4L looks great. Lots of folks report the Commlite adapter at ~$99 works well (or at least as good as MB). Getting a nice prime in the F1.2-2.0 range is also worth it for super shallow DOF. Used Nikon fast prime lens are pretty popular for the price (Nikon to NEX adapters are also low cost). If you want to do much still photography, consider Sony FE primes so you'll get autofocus (e.g. Sony-Zeiss 55mm F1.8).

A quick test in PS with ACR appears to show more DR with the A7S. More detail in the shadows and more recovery possible in the highlights. The A7S had more color noise, and is more magenta in the shadows (trying to correct overall color including shadows changed the board color too much (too much work to fix for this quick test)):

Fuzzy, sorry if my posts are coming off pedantic. You're making a case that skin tones aren't that important. I'm providing many facts (which you can verify for yourself) to make the case that skin tone color is indeed the most import element in your thread "the skin tone holy grail". Back when the 5D3 was released the big issue was it was too soft. I showed that with post sharpening it was pretty good (lots of folks disagreed; many felt post-sharpening was invalid and the camera should be sharp straight from the camera). I spent a lot of time looking for a camera that provided better native resolution and went with the FS700 when the SpeedBooster came out. After many projects with feedback from many people, it was clear that people preferred the look of the Canon over the Sony. There were indeed comments on the 5D3 being too soft for some shots, but overall people love the look of the 5D3 over the FS700+SB. The FS700 still provides value with up to 240fps 1080p (ish) slomo. As I read about lots of different cameras, the recurring pattern for what people love the most is skin tones. We are emotional beings and we evolved color vision, at least in part, to read emotion through skin tone color. Researching the best cameras, I found the same pattern: they produce skin tones which evoke a positive emotional response: "I like it." "I love it!". In narrative and commercials too, color sets the mood, helps tell the story, and conveys emotion at a deep level. Hi Jonesy- Blackmagic cameras have indeed gotten good reports for skin tones, though I haven't used them. A big part of the filmic look is highlight behavior of the camera/sensor and even more important: lighting for narrative (emotion). I have started paying very careful attention to scenes that look really 'filmic'. Even that ARRI Alexa and Red Dragon can look 'videoish' with bright lighting and resulting harsh highlights. Combine such lighting with an oversharp image and you've got the video look. Notice how often narrative scenes have very little lighting, with the most lighting on the face and eyes. The challenge I've had with Sony cameras, especially the FS700, is that after setting proper WB and exposure, even tweaking WB in post (including 3-way), parts of the face can look good/correct, but other parts are too yellow/orange/green/blue and don't look right. So now you have to do secondary color correction for those areas. Time consuming. The final results tend not to look as good as Canon or Panasonic. The A7S is better, but still requires more work vs. the 5D3 or GH4. For video, in my experience Panasonic cameras work pretty well for skin tones, to the point that I didn't worry about them. They just worked. For stills, in my experience Canon looks much better than Panasonic. It wasn't until using Sony cameras and getting feedback from others regarding skin tones that I started looking at skin tones in more detail. I was curious why so many top productions used ARRI cameras when it was only 2.8K/3.4K max resolution. The result of much reading was that ARRI provides the best color and skin tones. How do we know it's the best? We look at what people use when cost is not an issue, which cameras were used in the top grossing/award-winning films, etc. This lead to learning more about color and skin tones. So while many cameras can look great, cameras which look great with the least effort are the most useful and cost effective. It's also why Canon drives Andrew crazy releasing cameras with very limited features which outsell all the other brands with more features. Canon hasn't had to compete on features so much as they compete mostly on (skin tone) color.

IS is a big deal, but if you can use a rig of some kind, the Voigtlander's at F.95 look really nice and will be faster than F2.8 on a SpeedBooster (~F2 full frame equivalent).

​Yeah that camera can't even do color! The Red Dragon is a solid camera and in very high demand (both for purchase and rental). Shop around for others cameras which can do 4K+ slow motion and their prices. The F55 (and FS7) do 4K@60, but don't provide the image quality or color science of the Dragon. Red's wavelet compressed RAW is also helpful re:disk space vs. ARRIRAW etc.