jcs

Looks like most of the shots were on the F65: http://www.creativeplanetnetwork.com/news/shoot/superhuman-power-and-sony-f65-processing-creating-spectacular-visuals-lucy/606871

Car chase was on Red Epics and other shots Arri Alexa.
Really impressive look and fantastic color. Movie was pretty good too- Luc Besson writes, directs, and shoots good stuff!
Curious how the F65 color science differs from F55 on down the line. For this film Luc put the F65 above the Alexa for color (not just 4K).

Yeah, Oblivion is my favorite F65 film to date. Beautiful color and sound+music- great acting and cool story too. Even on Apple TV at 1080p and highly compressed, the detail and colors come through. Sony can do great color- is it the result of pro colorists taking extra time for features, or is Sony holding back? The F55 doesn't look as good. For example, Marco Polo on Netflix was shot on the F55. The first few episodes didn't look very good, though it did seem to improve with time (cool series- well done). The older F35 also has the Sony 'magic' colors- some folks picking those up used for a fraction of what they went for new ($250K).
I will say with a bit of time and tweaking and good lighting, the A7S can look pretty good. Perhaps it's time to get the FS700 out and try applying what I learned on the A7S to the FS700. A lot of other folks don't like the FS700 color- I'm curious with more experience can folks get better color. Sure, it's more work than Canon cameras, however they can't shoot 240fps. Initial examples of the FS7 are looking pretty good against the C300. Did Sony further improve the color science, or are people just getting better at matching Sony to Canon. That's how I'm learning- using 5D3 ML RAW with mlrawviewer straight to ProRes 10-bit 444 as the reference and tweaking the A7S to look as close as possible.
Folks might wonder why anyone would spend so much time figuring out how to make the A7S look like 5D3 RAW. Well, once figured out, it will be easy to apply during production. The A7S can do 60p at full 1080p (crop mode), ultra low light, less noise, tiny files, can use autofocus lenses, etc. It's also helpful in learning more about how to work with color.
In the software industry there's a saying, "Lazy Programmer", where a programmer goes to extraordinary lengths to work out a solution to problem that will save much more time later. The concept applies to filmmaking too.

Noise reduction in post doesn't give you extra dynamic range JCS or make colour any better, you still need to adjust the curve to put contrast back into the image, thus trading the dynamic range of the flat LOG profile for acceptable colour and contrast.
To some extent this addresses the core issue that is missing in this discussion. The deep shadows in the 1DC images are featureless, lacks texture and details. These are all tell-tale signs of noise reduction. Most if not all cameras do some form of noise reduction when recording internally even if noise reduction is set to zero. I will be extremely surprised if the 1DC is an exception. On the other hand the Shogun records footage from the A7s without any internal noise reduction which means that noise reduction have to be done in pp for a proper comparison. Alternatively direct recording from the 1DC sensor is necessary if you want to omit any pp in the comparison.

Oblivion comes to mind. That is a movie I can watch just for the visuals and the soundtrack. Shot on F65:



There are many beautiful shots in this movie. Naturally there are many computer generated images as well. But I remember sitting up straight in the theater during the scenes around the provisional lake cottage.

I purchased one of these for $129: http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B00EAXU6UM/ (price has gone up). Optically excellent if the mount works for you. The viewfinder is held securely by a magnet, with no tape/glue on the camera. The magnet came lose (super glued from factory?), however easily fixed with clear tape (could also use super glue, epoxy, or perhaps the new UV cured liquid plastic). The tape is only need to keep the magnet from sliding out (other axis held by metal). I mounted a handle on one of the rails- makes for a compact, stable platform.

Hitfabryk- in my tests PP4 works best in lower light conditions (as does PP3), PP5-7 in brighter light conditions. In their examples, IMO the A7S looks best in a few cases: color & noise.
toxotis70- I found this test via a search. Here's the full info: http://www.keyframe.tv/wp/2014/sony-fs7-alpha7s-and-canon-c300-color-science-comparison-part-1/, http://www.keyframe.tv/wp/2014/sony-fs7-alpha7s-canon-c300-color-science-comparison-part-2/
 
 

Here's my latest film shot on the Samsung NX1 - let me know your thoughts:  
 
Less jello.  shooting in 3840 x 2160 seems to my eyes to have less jello. 
Very minor grade.
Contrast -10
Saturation -3
Used Wondershare to convert at -35 contrast.
brought into Resolve and did some minor tweaking.

The guy with the 1.3.3 firmware managed to downgrade to 1.2.3 via EOS Utility.

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.

I just want to add, the D750 is the best stills camera I have ever used. Shot a wedding with it last week and I am just blown away with the file versatility and high ISO performance. Nikon knocked it out of the park. And the video quality has been a pleasant surprise. I feel like the D750 is everything the 5d3 should've been when it came out. 

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.
 
 

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?

Ok, Andrew. This topic has made me register on the forum. 
PLEASE stop judging a7s' DR based on a jpg. 
go here and scroll to the end of the page to see my post that shows "what hides in the white sky". I isolated the sky, turned the dial down and just sat there with my jaw on the floor. <3 Slog
http://www.dvxuser.com/V6/showthread.php?324777-A7s-sample-footage/page158
prores yes
jpg no

​I just thought your initial post was "challenging", which is fine. Everybody needs to be challenged. Your input into these topics are very useful (sometimes beyond my brain receptors) so thank you. I thought lafilm's reply was inappropriate and could of potentially fuelled a few emotions of the more opinionated members. Everyone makes mistakes when they get angry eh?
Ebrahim is a top guy, he is spot on. Topics like this are important to follow for the technical check-list - I'm trying to make a buying decision and this post involves those very cameras. 
These camera are very very close in DR. What matters is the price difference as per performance. Great sign for the future! 

I liked the posts of Matt James Smith. He challenged Andrew. He's gone.
I like your posts. You challenged Andrew. Please don't leave

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.
 
 

After shooting and editing extensively with the 5D3 (H.264 + RAW), Sony FS700, GH4, and A7S, based not only on my personal opinion, but on feedback from actors/models/clients, cameras which produce better skin tones are preferred. I found this out by shooting the same scenes with multiple cameras and reviewing the results with others. Doing research online I found that skin tones were the single most important element for cameras used to make money. Resolution, frame rates, viewfinders, ergonomics, etc., are all very important too, but skin tones are number one. Skin tones affect emotion, and emotion is used to tell a story or sell a product.
What cameras provide the best skin tones? ARRI and Canon. What cameras are used the most professionally? ARRI and Canon. What cameras are used the most in Oscar winning films (last few years)? ARRI. What DSLR was used most in feature films? Canon (5D, 7D, 1D): http://shotonwhat.com/?s=5D. Why did the C100/C300 far outsell/outrent the FS700, even though the FS700 has way more features (and can even look full frame with a SpeedBooster)? C100/C300 produce better skin tones with less effort. 
In the end, it's possible to get similar, sometimes even better (rare/unusual lighting conditions) skin tones from the GH4 and A7S vs. the 5D3, however on average, the 5D3 requires a lot less time and work.
How do we know when skin tones are better, when it's so subjective? Shoot the same scene with multiple cameras then show the results to multiple people for feedback. Some DPs do a ton of testing to figure this out before shooting a feature: http://www.hurlbutvisuals.com/blog/2013/10/arri-alexa-vs-canon-c500/

The Digital Bolex has great skin tones, very flattering.
 
Great camera for the money!
It's detailed and rich without being too stark and revealing.

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.

What JCS said was challenging, but lafilm has made it much worse with his comments, there is no need for such confrontational attitudes from anyone. Especially in that tone. It's fair for people to judge from their own conclusions, different eyes see different things. At least be civil about it. 
 

About 11 usable stops for 1Dc seems consistent with Adam Wilts review from March 2013. When he stretches it in post he gets to 13 stops. Doesn't really matter.
The point here is that Canon Log is a beautifully designed picture profile specifically for 8bit after carefully evaluating both technical as well as psycho visual aspects with many screenings before experiences DPs.
There is a DR craze going on with the false notion that a camera is supposed to capture everything from the darkest shadow to the brightest highlight. Welcome to amateur hour.
Just as the photographer/cinematographer carefully selects his/her framing, he/she also carefully select what light to include. Blown out highlights should be beautifully rendered. Light falling into shadow creates drama.
It should be obvious that both the Canon 1Dc as well as the A7s should be able to create satisfactory images. The error will fall on the operator. The 1Dc captures the image internally to CF-cards with no fuss, which is nice.

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?

That's asking for a grade rather than a correct, and I think that's a bit over saturated for a neutral base line.
 

 
You can go further if you want, but it just becomes hyperactive in colour, and sacrifice hue accuracy to get that level of colour.
 

 
etc

​It's a big deal in narrative. Even with make up, we still need an accurate chip. So when we dial in the face our backgrounds aren't AWOL. I work mostly episodic TV. We have ridiculously tight turn around times. They like cameras that have less fiddling and grade time in post (saves them $$). It's the reason why Alexa and C300's have been dominating TV.  I I'd say they comprise 80 percent of my work and it's not because of the resolution. I've been on many a shoot for broadcast where they use 5D's because they love the colors. Granted, you're right about Canon being saturated and warm, but post finds it easier to dial down a richer signal than boost a thin one. 

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.