jax_rox

I know that the objective on this and many other forums is to make images that are as like the movies as much as possible (which is odd considering how much is talked about the camera bodies themselves rather than the lighitng.. but I digress)... But doing something because someone else is doing it is an awful reason to do it. Yes, a lot of films are shot on S35 sized sensors (or celluloid) and are often shot at T2-2.8 or T4-5.6. That doesn't mean that it's right for you, or your style of shooting, or for your film. I've shot at T8 in the past. I've shot entire movies at T1.3 for a certain look. If you do things because 'that's how the professionals do it' you will never develop your own style and you will always be second rate. If you want to do anything like the pros do - light like the pros do. That's what will make an actual difference to the look of your image. You are correct when you say that cinema lenses are designed to be sharp wide open. With a modern cinema lens, the characteristics of the lens and the sharpness tend to be the same whether you're wide open or stopped down. I think it's unfair to compare them to s till lenses which are made to a price point, and which don't have the same quality. You can say 'feature films often shoot at T2.8 all the time, so that's where I'm going to shoot' but feature films are shooting on lenses that are sharp at T2.8. Many still lenses won't ever be as sharp as cinema lenses, let alone wide open. There's a certain DOF aesthetic and certain aesthetic to shooting wide open or close to on stills lenses, but the lenses are so different to cinema lenses that you can't really accurately compare them and use that as an argument. It goes back to what I say above - most enthusiasts would rather shoot at ISO 20,000 without lights than put the time and effort into learning how to light. Indeed, shaping and crafting light is what Cinematography is! Not what's the best camera, or what camera has the best low light. S35 was grainy even at 500ASA! I'd rather shoot S35 on 160ASA film and a 5-ton grip/lx truck than shoot on an A7s at 51,000 ISO and no lights. Now, I own an A7s and it's cool that it has great low light ability. But it was not the reason I bought it - in fact, I sat there watching the demo with a friend of mine and I said to him 'look it's cool that it has that kind of low light performance... but really, when would you ever use it?! It's not like I'm going to shoot a film in the pitch blackness without lights..' Fincher does a lot of things.. .that cost time and money ;) It's great when you have that kind of budget. RED Dragon is incredibly noisy in the shadows even at ISO800 if you don't expose it correctly. I rarely rate a RED over about 320ISO because it can start getting so noisy.

I do remember reading that Sony's long term plan was to be the new number 2 in terms of photography - IOW they wanted to boout out either Nikon or Canon to 3rd place, no matter how long it took them.

Sony have a different product offering. Sony's direct C300 competitor has 2k and 4k internal recording in 422 10-bit. Raw via an external recorder. Not even the C500 can record even 2k internally. Sony have worked almost top-down to develop a product line and offering that complements each other and each serves its own purpose. Sony also waited a bit to release cameras like the F5/55 and the FS7 in order to one-up the competition. Canon seem to have worked bottom up and not put a whole lot of forethought into how their ecosystem will work looking into the future. It worked for them. Being first to market with a mid-range large sensor camera sold them a lot of units, but now they're in a position where they're struggling to keep up.

Sony is delivering it because the A7s has comparatively gigantic pixels that are much more sensitive light. The hard part for an SLR/video hybrid is a 12MP sensor is bad news for marketing a photo camera. Even if the IQ is great, 24MP or 36MP is simply a lot more resolute than 12MP. And at the end of the day, when someone walks into a camera shop and is presented with an A7s and A7r, and is then told one is 36MP and is $500 cheaper than the 12MP one... There are phones that have MP counts higher than 12MP. Of course, all/most here, and most professional photographers know that pure megapixel count does not have a lot to do with the quality of the camera or image, but most enthusiast photographers don't know that, and it's not a thing you can market all that well. In addition, there are many photographers who need higher MP counts. You either bring out a range of cameras aimed at different markets, as Sony has done, or you try and make one camera that's marketable and usable as something approaching a true hybrid. If you do the latter, you have to compromise something to be able to do it in a small body at the appropriate price. A7s is by far a camera aimed at the video market, where high megapixel counts do not matter. It seems to me that the A7s and GH4 are the first SLR/ILC type camera that are more geared towards (and marketed towards) being a video camera that takes good photos, rather than a photo camera that also happens to shoot decent video. That market will always be more niche than the photography market that demands higher megapixel counts.

More sensor area means more space available for light to hit. Not to mention that the performance of a lens at f/5.6 is generally better than a lens that is wide open or close to it - for example at f/2.8

You never said 'as sharp as' - you said identical image quality. The FS100 is discontinued, so you can't compare an A7s to it. The FS700 offers over the A7s:High frame rates (240fps in HD, up to 960fps in lower quality)Internal NDXLR inputs without extra purchase3G SDIBetter rolling shutterSlog in full RGB range vs TV-safe range10-bit HDMI output4k and 2k 12-bit raw available via external recorderIt's a different camera, with a different purpose, and enough extra features to justify the extra price. The FS7 offers a similar improvement over the FS700. A C100 would offer over a 5D with the same image quality:Internal NDXLR inputsWaveform, peaking, zebras... all available via an inexpensive monitor. Wifi control is generally a gimmick, and has no real use on-set. So you could keep saving, buy the C100mkII and Canon can make more money from you.. or they can bring out the same image at 2/3 the price, and make less money from you.. That won't happen either, because then the C500 has nowhere to go. The C500 does not even have 4k internally. Canon's top of the line cinema camera does not even record higher than 30p internally at 1080. My money is on a 5DmkIV with better photographic quality. Video quality incrementally better, perhaps a better codec (maybe H.265?). C300mkII with 2k 4:2:0 8-bit internal, 10-bit 4:2:2 via external recorder. C500mkII with 4k 4:2:0 8-bit internal, maybe 1080p at up to 96-120fps. Then maybe they'll announce their rumoured 'high-end cinema' cam, which will probably have an 8k sensor recording 4k internally to CFast cards... or something.

Look here: http://***URL removed***/previews/panasonic-dmc-gh4-sony-alpha-7s/7 The A7s at 6400 ISO has similar noise performance to the GH4 at 1600 ISO. Perhaps slightly cleaner. Also, the GH4 does not inherently have more DOF. If you put a 50mm on an A7s and then on a GH4, and shot at the same f-stop, the depth of field would actually be identical. The GH4 shot would be much more telephoto because of the smaller sensor. To get the same field of view as the A7s' 50mm on the GH4, you need to use a 25mm, which has less depth of field.

At least they attempt to position themselves in a different league. Arri has no sub $40,000 camera. Which is the same price as REDs top of the line camera, and basically double the price of Canon's top of the range. Canon saw a gap in the market and introduced a line of cameras in the $5-20k range and basically carved themselves a niche market in the documentary/run n gun TV market. The cameras were relatively affordable, delivered image quality good enough for television, and took advantage of the existing lenses and accessories of many shooters, or allowed shooters to take advantage of Canon's comparatively cheap (compared to normal television or cinema lenses), yet still decent quality lenses. Canon don't have a contender at the top of the range. Even the C500 struggles to gain traction as a viable option for an A camera, or even B camera in many cases. Sony were a bit more careful, and have brought out a range of cameras in all markets that really solidifies their position, and allows a solid upgrade path for shooters. You can buy into Sony's ecosystem, and keep things like raw recorders and the like as you move from camera body to camera body (much like RED). Sony also developed their FZ lens mount system that allows you to put just about any lens you want on the camera. Unlike Canon, where you have to lock in your choice of EF or PL mount when you purchase your camera, and can't really change your mind down the track, or when a different project pops up. With Sony you can use EF glass, or you can use PL glass if you want. Even on a RED camera you can change lens mounts if you need to shoot with different lenses. It seems that Canon rushed to be the first into that mid-range camera market, and it has worked for them. But they seemed to make a lot of assumptions that may have even been true of the time. But now the market has changed, and there are viable and better options from a number of different manufacturers. I think they've painted themselves into somewhat of a corner and I will be interested to see how they get themselves out of it.

No, that wouldn't make any sense - they would then be cannibalising C100mkII sales. Most people who shoot on C-series cameras are people who have come from SLR shooting. They may have certain features about C-cameras that they like, but if someone's looking to make a camera purchase, and they can buy a 5DmkIV with the same image quality as the C100mkII for $2k less, they're going to go for the 5D. There's nowhere Canon can go in terms of major improvements for video in the sub $5k market that won't cannabalise their C-series lineup. I would expect incremental video updates, and much more substantial updates on the photography side, at least for the <$5k market.

I might just add that 'any' follow focus is fine if you're never going to use an AC to pull focus for you, or if you're not wanting to do repeatable moves with it. If the sole purpose for it is to get your hand off the lens, then any will work, though there are some that are a lot worse than others.

It's unsurprising really. Sony have had the Steadyshot feature in many of their pro/sumer lineups for over 10 years. My old Z1 had it. And guess what - the old Z1 had the exact same jitteriness issue! It's a nice feature for stills, but for video it can often be useless. It's meant to minimize hand jitter when shooting totally handheld and that's it - it's no Movi or Steadicam. Most people would complain about the Steadyshot feature when doing pans and tilts and stuff - which was never what it was really designed for. It was designed to smooth out still, handheld shot. I can only assume this IBIS is the same. Back in those days, however, features just came with a camera - Steadyshot wasn't even really a big selling point. These days though, every little feature that one-ups the competition is touted as the next greatest thing and used to sell a whole bunch of units. Sony do tend to have aggressive release strategies. They're also notorious for not releasing much wanted features at all, at least in their consumer division. The pro video and pro audio division tends to listen very closely to what their customers want, but the consumer division is much less attentive.

Canon mirrorless loses them the advantage of those who have invested in their lenses. An EOS-M needs an adapter to use EF lenses, as does any other mirrorless camera from any other manufacturer. So it loses the benefit of a native EF mount. And to make a mirrorless camera with EF mount would be to take away the adaptability of the mount, which is to take away a main drawcard of a mirrorless camera. Their potential full frame mirrorless offering will need to be the absolute best mirrorless camera on the market and be at a competitive price point, or it will not be able to compete. It will also need some strong, quality EF-M lens offerings for anyone to be able to take it seriously. Sony may only have a small handful of full frame E-mount lenses (they have quite a bit more in their APS-C selection), but the EOS M has what - 3 native lenses? At least Sony's are (mostly) Zeiss made. If it materialises, my money's on it being a consumer - 'affordable full frame' type camera, marketed at consumers and as a small 2nd camera for professionals.

It really depends very much on what school it is. The better/best schools attract working professionals with high pay. The film school I went to, I was taught by a few different Cinematographers who are working professionals, but had some down time and were happy to take the incredibly good pay. Your statement is very much a generalisation, and it differs from school to school, and even different courses and classes within the schools. I know a lot of working professionals have taught at places like AFI and USC, as extreme examples. At my film school, our Cinematography teachers were mostly working professionals, our Scriptwriting and Directing teacher for our final year was a working professional, whilst our Scriptwriting/Directing teachers for the other years were good writers and Directors but only had one or two minor credits to their name. Our editing teacher had edited a couple of major films in the past, but not done anything notable for 5-10 years. We had Producing teachers who were professionals and some who had worked on major films overseas but didn't have notable English language film credits. It really depends.

I have two PNY 64GB SDXC UHS-I cards with write speeds of 95Mb/s. Not had a problem with them at all. You can only shoot XAVC-S to SDXC cards, but you can shoot AVCHD to others. XAVC-S is a high quality and very efficient codec. Use it for best results. AVCHD will still be usable, but if it's a choice - go XAVC-S I'm not sure what this question means exactly... How low light are we talking? I'd shoot Slog XAVC-S. Bear in mind that there has to be some light for it to give results. You couldn't, for example, expect the camera to see detail in a pitch black room.

You mean it's rumoured that Canon are designing a camera with technology that's been around for 10 years? Tell me again how the 'messiah' is returning?

Was at a Sony event a couple weeks ago and they were showing 4k A7s footage on a 4k TV, and it was stunning considering it's a $2.5k SLR-style camera. Colours looked pretty good, very F3-esque, and there definitely weren't the issue I've seen on some of the videos that have been discussed here. Will post the GH4 vs A7s stuff when we complete it.

Most ND filters exhibit a green cast, because of the way they're dyed. Only the most expensive ND filters are formulated to be completely colour free.

Let's not confuse things here. You can crop right in on 4k files - 4k is 4x the size of 2k, you can actually crop into a quarter of the frame if you wanted to. That, however, does brings up issues like lens resolving power and all the rest of it. It's not really equivalent to a S16 sensor, however - let's not confuse post cropping with sensor sizes.

My feeling is you should either go to film school, or spend those 3-4 years crewing on films, gaining experience and working in the industry. I have never been a fan of this 'don't go to film school, just shoot a feature!' mindset, as without some basis of training (whether that's learning from those better than you by being on a set, or in a film school environment), you're making a film blindly, and whilst you will learn some things from it, I see it as much more of a waste of money than film school itself.

If you're happy with the results you get grading log footage from the BMPCC (or 'film' gamma mode as they call it), then I'm sure you'll be happy with the results from grading Slog.

If it were me, I'd probably try and save an extra $500 or so and look into getting a Chrosziel DV Studio Rig or more likely an Arri MFF2. Could probably get them cheaper 2nd hand.

You're right - this is a $2.5k consumer camera with a feature normally found in cameras worth around 10 times the price. The Slog is optional. You don't have to use it. If you can't grade it, don't shoot in it. I don't really understand why it's such an issue - there are 2 other profiles that are 'Cinema' profiles that are simply flatter, rather than full Slog. Shoot in those if you can't grade Slog! There are many productions that shoot REC709 on Alexa if they absolutely have no time to do a full grade. That's totally fine. If you also don't have the time or knowledge to grade log footage, I'm not sure why you would shoot it. I guess I just don't understand the argument of 'I have no idea how to expose Slog or grade it, and that makes it a useless and stupidly difficult feature!' Or is it just stupid and useless until Resolve introduces a one-touch 'make my shots look nice' button? Also, I see your point on the Alexa - though it's not made out of steel, and actually shoots ProRes unless you really want Arriraw. Also the body is 8kg, not 20 - though of course you could easily rig it out to be even heavier than 20kg. And I wouldn't necessarily call having a camera that needs the appropriate tripod and stabilisation equipment for the weight of it an 'issue' - I mean I don't think I'd call anything in your list an 'issue' but sure. My point is that everyone wanted log on a DSLR range/priced camera (look at all the people shooting Technicolour or similar 'flat' profiles). Now they have it and they're all complaining because it's too hard to grade...

Have you tried/are you using the XLR interface? I've heard very good things about it.

Whilst Aronofsky, Terrence Malick, Ron Howard, Wally Pfister, Janusz Kaminski, David Lynch, George Lucas, Judd Apatow, John Carpenter, Doug Liman, Jay Roach, Lee Unkrich, Jeff Cronenweth, Robert Yeoman, Francis Ford Coppola, Alexander Payne, Rob Reiner, David Silverman, Gore Verbinski... to name a few. All went to film school. Film school is not for everyone, and you don't have to go to film school to build a career, but many successful people have sure got a lot out of it. My film school had two Alexas, an Epic, a 435, 4 SR3s, an Aaton XTR, and a deal with the local rental house to rent out an Aaton Penelope for 3 months of the year for use by students. In addition to 5Ds, Varicams and the like. We had tens of thousands of dollars worth of lenses, and hundreds of thousands of dollars worth of lighting, sound and grip equipment. I now work regularly with the people who were my friends at school. I helped out on many sets, which helped me to hone my skills in a safe environment, and its my contacts that I met at film school who basically built my career. Most people I work for, I have been recommended to them by someone I went to film school with. Or recommended by someone who I was initially recommended to by someone I went to film school with. Or are someone I did go to film school with. It's not for everyone and you don't necessarily need to go. But I now have a professional career in film. I can't say for certain that I would not still only be doing events, corporates and wedding videography had I not gone to film school.

Or, you actually need to grade properly, rather than put a single node on it, do a bit of a levels curve and call it a day. That's not really colour grading. Slog is a professional log gamma curve which needs a good grade. You don't hear anyone complaining that the Alexa is challenging to grade because you can't do it in a single node. I'll be doing some side by side tests with the GH4 and A7s for an upcoming project in a couple weeks. I'll be interested to see the difference. Personally, I find the colour out of any of the Blackmagic offerings much more unpleasant than what I get out of my A7s, and none of my skin tones have been green so far.