Tim Naylor

4k the future? The viewing distance of a computer monitor is not much more than an arm's length. So sure 4k is noticeable. It's 9 feet in a living room. I leave the math up to you. Not sure how much doc work you do or testing of variable ND's you've done but variable ND's have considerable issues in terms color cast, IR contamination, as well background flaring / contrast issues and then usability (have fun using it with a sun shade). Compare the IQ of any variable to a straight ND. You'll see background contrast especially in the bokeh is muddier as well as color distortions. If continuity figures into your shooting, the latter can be a big problem. Even with Heliopans. Regarding EF lenses on super 35mm as a waste, how can you justify that? Loads of shoots, professional and amateur alike use them to great effect. Virtually every paying doc job uses a 70-200 at some point. In super 35 you get considerably less fall off towards the corners. Concerning the Fs7, I think it's a great concept on paper. Until I've used it or seen some good tests/footage from it, it's just specs. And if specs were everything, the Alexa would be a waste and the industry would be dominated by f5/55's. Have you had a chance to shoot / grade Fs7? Love to know what you think, flawed opinion or not. Hurlbut's review of course is tainted by his biases like all of our opinions. For you, 4k seems to a be a priority. For many, like me, it's not. The consistency with Hurlbut that I share as well is that he leans towards cameras that produce rich but natural flesh tones and low noise. All of his tests use faces and color charts (not trees, buildings, cars, bridges, etc). He's trying to discern the camera's accuracy and ability to re-produce that which he thinks is most important, flesh tone. Based on this, I thought the IQ overall from his C100 II tests looked outstanding (except bad clipping in one shot). Hopefully, he does a proper A/B with Fs7.

I'd trade in my A7s for the C100 II any day even if it had a Shogun. The reasons: better color, built in ND, low rolling shutter, auto focus, better IR control, better communication with Canon glass, etc. 4k? I've yet to be asked by anyone for a 4k deliverable. For punching in during post it can be great or a complete disaster (when you don't control the post). For work, I shoot mostly Amira/Alexa at lowly 2k or 1080p. Audiences, producers and directors (the people who pay our bills) don't care about the rez at that point. Until people get living rooms big enough for an 85" TV or you enjoy sitting five feet away from a standard size set, the difference is negligible. Where Hurlbut comes up short in his assessment is in the price. Saying 5500.00 is comparable to a DSLR with the requisite trimmings misses that you'll still need hand held rigging for the C100 II as well as an EVF if you plan to use it on your shoulder. So add perhaps 1200.00 for shoulder rig, 900.00 for decent EVF, another 300.00 for EVF mount and you see where this is going. I think his strong leaning towards Canon are its color profiles. His tests bare it out. It may be 8 bit but when your colors are 90% on in Canon Log, your grade isn't going to be so far gone that 8 bit becomes a major issue. The main problem I have with the C100 II is rear mounted EVF, non - standard height (you have to buy special baseplates if you plan to use rods and MB) and stupid placement of iris wheel (when it's on your shoulder).

Getting great colors with the A7s can be elusive but possible, especially if you use the right profile settings. I thought it'd be great if A7s owners/users could post their best profile "cocktails" ideally with footage, best conditions and uses for their custom settings. As this is a thread to improve the A7s image, do us a favor and please save the camera bashing for another thread. Thanks. Here's one I tried that Kholi Hicks came up with that worked quite well for me in terms of getting a very gradeable flesh tone and all but eliminated the dreaded green hue. Thanks Kholi. Black Level: 0 Gamma Slog: 2 Black Gamma > Range: Middle , Level: -3 Knee > Mode: Auto , Auto Set > Max Point: 95 , Sensitivity: Mid Colore Mode: Pro Saturation: +8 Color Phase -2 Color Depth > R+1, G-1, B+2,, C-2, M-1, Y-3 Detail > Level, -5 Adjust > Mode; Manual, V/H Balance: -2, B/W Balance Type3, Limit: 0, Crispening:0, hi_light Detail: 0 White balance > Manual > Grid setting B 1 (one to the left) 3000-3600 = Tungsten 5000 - 5600 = Daylight 6100 - 7000 = late day or shade/shaded interiors in daylight

Will definitely give this a shot. Do you notice any DR changes at lower ISO's?

Skin tones are definitely something people notice perhaps more than all other aspects of a camera (rez, DR, etc). When the skin tones are off (magenta, green, etc), it cheapens the look. When I screened an ABC blind test on a 20 foot screen to my producers and director, they all chose the Alexa (over RED and F55) primarily because they like the way the skin looked. If the color of a tree or building are off it's of little consequence but the face is a different story. It's why when we do tests to judge the parameters of a camera it's always with a face and a color chart.

I tried these settings from Kholi Hicks for my A7s. Definitely a big improvement for grading accurate skin tone. Restored much hope in my A7s. Black Level: 0 Gamma Slog: 2 Black Gamma > Range: Middle , Level: -3 Knee > Mode: Auto , Auto Set > Max Point: 95 , Sensitivity: Mid Colore Mode: Pro Saturation: +8 Color Phase -2 Color Depth > R+1, G-1, B+2,, C-2, M-1, Y-3 Detail > Level, -5 Adjust > Mode; Manual, V/H Balance: -2, B/W Balance Type3, Limit: 0, Crispening:0, hi_light Detail: 0 White balance > Manual > Grid setting B 1 (one to the left) 3000-3600 = Tungsten 5000 - 5600 = Daylight 6100 - 7000 = late day or shade/shaded interiors in daylight It gives a very juicy and gradeable flesh tone.

I use this option. Thumbs up. Great thing about H4N it's so play school simple. So if you have to show someone else how to use it, it takes minutes.

IR VARI ND or Normal VARI ND. Try this white balance to a grey card without filter, shoot face. Then add filter without white balance, shoot face and gray card so we can see the amount of shift. Then white balance with grey card/filter and shoot face and see how it compares to the first. We'll get an idea of the amount shift and how correctable it is.

Just when I think I've unlocked good flesh tones on my A7s, then I look at my 5d3 footage and know I've got more work to do.

Any one have info on the A7s built in IR filtration?

Own A7s. Had a 5D3. Never used ML on jobs for variety of reasons. Sometimes I wonder about my decision to get rid of 5d3. For stills it's far superior. For video, I find the colors of 5d3 in a different league than A7s. While A7s is better for me in almost every other category (DR and resolution), it wouldn't surprise me if you showed a side by side clip to a regular audience member or client, they may very well prefer the 5d3. Most humans don't care about resolution. They do sense when colors are off. I did a similar blind test between F55, Dragon and Alexa projected in front of producers and the director for a feature I shot last Summer. Alexa won unanimously, Dragon 2nd and F55 last. Despite the Alexa being 2k, the others 6k and 4k, the skin tones won the day.

Here's the AIS 180mm 2.8.

My two new favorite still lenses (they're actually old) are the Nikon AIS 135mm 2.0 and Nikon AIS 180mm 2.8. All metal, decently long focus draw (app 180 deg), perfect dampening, and built the way lenses should be built. I've had these two for some time. Bought them for my Red 1 back in the day. When I started doing bigger jobs with rental house glass, I sold most my Nikon AIS collection but I kept the 105 Macro AIS 2.8 Macro, 135 2.0 and just recently bought the 180. I should've never sold the 85 1.4. Beautiful glass. But IMO I prefer the 135 2.0 for portrait / interview work in full frame. Since buying the A7s, my longer vintage Nikons have found considerable use alongside my Rokinon Set (24,35,50 and 85). For interviews in full frame, the 135 and 180 are my go to glass. The downside is if I've been shooting with Rokinons then switch to Nikon, I have to reverse my focus pull. Takes some getting used to and a few buzzed shots. What I love most about the Nikons are the bokeh and fall off. Not as clinical as Zeiss but optically every bit as good. You can score the 135 2.0 on Ebay for 400-600 while the 180 goes from 300-500. The 180 is small for such a long focal length. I often use it over my Canon 70-200 II because it's considerably more discrete. Usually when I pop on the 70-200, I have it on primarily for the end of the focal length, but it attracts attention. The 180 is pocket sized comparatively. 135mm 2.0 AIS

Try this. http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/666189-REG/Chrosziel_AC_450_22_AC_450_22_Flex_Ring_Flexible_Step_Down.html If you use an MB off rods, this flexible donut is by far the best and useable out there. I've tried them all, from Zacuto to Neoprene donuts, all of which can be a POA. This Chrosziel unit while not cheap, pretty much covers all your DSLR lenses. But they do make a bigger one just in case.

What's nuts is that not even five years ago you could score a set of Baltars for less than 15 grand. Then somewhere along the way, people realized that glass is one of the few ways to get a distinct look, especially vintage. Now you can't touch a set for less than 40k.

Andy, I was the camera op on this short. All super Baltars, Epic, and some Lo Con filters here and there. I love the look, but they are a super pain in the ass to pull focus on because of low contrast and skinny focus draw. My AC was excellent but we did buzz more than a few moments. You look at Godfather, none of the staging is terribly complicated for a focus puller. I believe our Baltars came from Duclos.

I have an H4N that I attach to rods on my camera and feed to my A7s. If it's a simple interview, I usually just use the track straight from the A7s, but I have split levels recording on the H4N tracks in case someone pins or is too soft. Works great. Had a TEAC. Got rid of it because it was just too glitchy and the layout most user unfriendly. Also have a Sennheiser G5 for wireless Lav that I patch into the Zoom. I try to go with my boom mic for interviews whenever possible - just sounds a whole lot better. For that I use a Rode Video Pro attached to a C Stand and a Rode mini boom. The rode mic has it's own shock mount. I use a ball mount on the end of the boom to position the mic. The Rode Video Mic Pro never ceases to impress me. Great sound. Great price. Anything more complicated I get a sound man.

Anyone? Sound of crickets..... Who has experience with these and this company? http://www.2filter.com/faq/tiffen/tiffenirndcamerafilters.html#7492 Amazing price for what looks like a complete set up to .21

Finding the right ND brand for a digital camera can be tricky. What works well on one camera may cause an unacceptable color shift on another. For example, since the C300 has considerable built in IR control using certain ND IR filters on Canon C300's adds too much correction. Anyway, as much as I love my Sony A7s, I've yet to find the optimum ND situation. While I love faders for their convenience, when I can I opt for straight ND's because they look infinitely better. But I need both for work. So can anyone with experience with the A7s please chime in about what variable and straight ND, IR and Non IR, brand you find to be the sharpest and with the least amount of color shift. And please refrain from talking about your experience cameras other the A7s. Right now I'm leaving towards a set of White Water TIffens 77mm IR ND. Thanks

Thanks for that post. Looks promising. 300 degrees rotation is nice too. These lenses should be a hit with 3 axis gimbals.

Definitely a CCD vs CMOS issue. I used to shoot a lot of Varicam (3CCD) back in the day and the colors were far richer and truer than RED.

Apacalypto was shot on F35. It uses CCD technology which IMO has better colors than CMOS.

They're is some great C mount glass out there. From the markings it looks like the focus draw is about 180 degrees.

Check out Atomos

Andy, while I respect Matthew Duclos' tech work and opinions, sometimes he gets a bit too tech in his assessment of what makes good glass. He gave the new Schneider Xenons a thumbs up and to be honest, I think they're somewhat dull and soulless. I did an A, B and C test between Xenons, Zeiss Mk3's and Cooke S4's. The Zeiss and Cooke wiped the floor with them in every respect, especially in terms of color / flesh tone rendition. The flaring on Xenons was pretty clinical. Also, certain lenses were next to impossible to flare due to recessed front elements. What I see in his assessment of the Veydra's are just chart shooting and comparison charts. No faces, bokeh, flare, and all that good stuff that makes up the soul of a lens. Hopefully, I can get my hands on the Veydra's soon and find out if they're the real deal.