jax_rox

Reality is - even 16:9 is an extraction from 4-perf 35mm! This sort of practice is far from new. I did really like the look of Gone Girl, I think Cronenweth is a great DP.

Man, the RED Dragon DOES NOT have 18-20 stops of dynamic range I can tell you - unless they gave Cronenweth a special yet-to-be-released camera. Shooting spherical and extracting 2.40 is pretty damn common and has been for a little while now. You can tell when it's just been cropped versus actually shooting anamorphic. Personally, I'd rather just shoot anamorphic, but there are inherent issues to overcome in doing that. It's all different looks, and people should use what they like the best. Just because these guys are doing it does not mean anamorphic is going away, it's just another way of working.

I'll scientifically explain it to you :) You're watching the wrong videos ;) The A7s is actually capable of really great images and colour out of the camera, it's just that most people shoot Slog and don't really know what to do with it. And the reason they shoot Slog is (I think) because they're not 100% happy with the standard picture profiles straight out of camera. If I get some time I'll see if I can work on a picture profile that might give better results straight out of camera.

Well you see it's interesting because if you're talking real history there wasn't a technology change every 6 months. These days, film professionals don't invest into cameras unless they happen to be flush with money and can throw away that kind of money on a camera or if they can be sure they'll have enough work to pay it off within the next 12 months. After that, you expect the technology to change and move on, because that's the current camera climate. You sound like a guy who is really jaded because he spent way too much money on a camera that is out-dated and being out-specced by cheaper cameras. Do you know what people do invest in? Lenses. Professionals who actually work day to day in this industry don't invest in camera bodies, unless they're really high-end and they can make money off rentals like Alexa, or they're justifiable because they have the work over the following 12 months to pay it off on top of paying their wage. Because if the only thing it offers over any other camera is the ability to go to ISO6400 @ 4k, it's not a really good investment. You forget that most professionals use lights. Most professionals don't need to go to ISO6400 ever. There hasn't ever been a time when I've been shooting with Alexa and thought 'oh man, I really wish I could push this to 6400 ISO'. I just light the scene. I often shoot night scenes and stop down to ~T4.0. At 800 ISO. I like the depth. It's called lighting. It's more important to your overall image than the camera body that's capturing the lighting. Now, if you're talking events or docos - sure. But a DSLR-type camera is not going to be my first choice for those anyway because it's not ergonomically suited to run 'n' gun video shooting. However, sometimes you don't have teh budget for much more than a DSLR. My feeling is that either the C500 and C300 will merge into one camera whose price sits in the middle of the two now. Or, the C300 mkII will get 2k 8-bit internal, 4k 10-bit via recorder. And the C500 mkII will get internal 8-bit 4k recording. I've used Sony cameras a fair bit recently. I really like the F5, and the image out of the F3 is pretty impressive too. The image out of the A7s is very very similar to the image out of the F3. In my personal opinion - the Sony image is different, not worse. The Sony image is very different to Canon, Nikon, Red, Alexa... But it's not bad. I'm not sure what videos you've seen - I've seen some awfully graded A7s stuff around the internet, and some of them are from people who are trying to suggest ways to grade the footage! However, the stuff I've shot I've been pretty happy with. I think the biggest issue is that most people who are buying into this camera don't have much idea how to work with S-log. So you end up with footage that's underexposed and therefore needs to be pushed a lot more introducing a lot more noise. And you end up with footage that's not graded very well as the majority of the market the A7s is aimed at have no clue how to grade it.

I will say - the 'SLR Revolution' and affordable gear has driven prices down. Clients come to you with budgets 1/10th what they used to be and expect work that's on the same level. Commercials that used to be budgeted at a quarter of a million dollars or more are now expected to be done for $10k. Some of the gear is cheaper, sure - but talent still comes at a cost. My Gaffer's day rate didn't change when the SLRs came out with video. Neither did my ACs. If there's a way that the cheap affordable gear is hurting, it's in the budgets that are now so small, and the clients who expect so much for their budget. But, it's mostly just different. I still make a nice living, as do many others I work with. Er.. maybe HotRod. But Zacuto make gear very much aimed at the enthusiast/semi-pro (despite how ridiculously overpriced it is).

If the only difference between you and the 15 year old kid whose parents jsut bought him his first camera is the camera itself, then I've got bad news for you. The reality is - tutorials and web videos can only teach you so much. Unless you have professional experience, understanding, and in most cases mentoring from professionals who are better than you - you're generally not going to get too far. I shoot on a number of different camera bodies. The look of my work comes down to the way I light things, not the camera bodies I use. If Roger Deakins shot on a C300 it would still look like it was shot by Roger Deakins. A newbie can buy an Alexa if they want, but nothing they shoot will look like it was shot by Deakins.

There is no extreme low light 4k camera on the market period! Unless you count the A7s recording to an external recorder, or maybe the C500. It's actually more like test driving an Volkswagen and an Audi and saying 'hey you know what, the VW has its quirks, but it's just as fast, just as nice to drive and costs like 1/10th of the price of the Audi!' Likening Canon to Ferrari is not helping your 'I'm not a fanboy' cause. A7s has APS-C crop mode - what's your point? The Otus' outperform CP2s and CN-Es, but they do not outperform Ultra or Master Primes, though the 55 and 85 are nice lenses. Fine, I'll put Cookes on it then if I have to :P Are you kidding? Have you not the comments on a single article about Apple ever? Maybe read them sometime and watch everyone bash Apple for all sorts of things (not the least of which being 'behind the curve'). Those who own Apple products tend to defend them. That's exactly my point. Personally, I own a lot of Apple products, and I like them. I like the way they work and I like what I can do with them. Now, I know that you can do just as much, and in some cases more on other devices. And on other devices that are much cheaper. But I like the way Apple works. I wouldn't start talking about what a big deal I am and how Apple products are better than every other product on the market if someone said to me that their PC that costs 1/2 the price can do more than my Apple computer. I would agree with them, because I know it to be true. I just prefer the Apple. You prefer Canon. That's totally fine - and if you are happy with your choice of camera, that's great. You don't need to defend it. But, there are cameras that are just as well specced, just as good (or better) for much less money. I'd be pretty pissed off too if I bought a camera for $12k and 2 years later a different company brought a camera just as specced for 1/10 the price. But that's another reason why it's silly to invest in an expensive camera unless you can totally pay it off on top of gaining an income for yourself in 12-18 months. The Sony F5. Oh wait, you were trying to be rhetorical. F5 costs the same as a C500. It's light, small (compared to many others) and gives an awesome picture at 2k or 4k at super high frame rates in a super-gradable 10-bit XAVC codec, which would have to be one of the most efficient codecs out there. You ever tried putting a C-series camera on your shoulder? No you haven't, because it's not possible to do unless you rig some ridiculous contraption. What about battery life? I regularly shoot with Alexa. I was on a music video shoot recently where we didn't have access to any power. It was an 8-hour shoot day and I was panicking because we only had 8 V-Lock batteries. I spent the day trying to conserve power as much as I could, and nabbed two block batteries from the rental house in case of an emergency power situation. Sometimes you can be lucky to get 30 minutes out of certain V-Locks. Power an on-board monitor from the RS port or D-Tap, and you'll struggle. Even RED is generally a swap out every hour or so. At least the A7 batteries are cheap. You're right - the Canons have better battery life. But if the difference between a $2500 body and a $13,000 body comes down to battery life... Oh, you mean the XLR input on the add-on 'box' that was specifically designed for the GH4? You mean the box specifically designed to add XLR inputs and SDI outputs? How? The FS700 has internal ND, XLR inputs, adaptable lens mount, viewfinder, cheap batteries, cheap cards, Slog... Ability to shoot 2k or 4k raw, super high frame rates.... I personally don't like the FS700 (in fact I really dislike it), but I also dislike the C-series cameras. You gotta say though, the FS700 is better specced for the same price. There's no feature you're giving up on, it's just that you like Canon better. That's totally fine - just say that rather than trying to suggest that there's no other camera on the market that's as good as it. There's so much hyperbole being thrown around everywhere. It's perfectly fine to have an opinion on a camera. A lot of people here are blinded by their investment, and that's human nature. But the fact that you own a different camera does not make it an objectively better camera than others out there. It may be better for you. That's great. You should pick cameras based on your needs and wants in a system. But it doesn't mean everyone else has identical needs or wants from a camera system, and it doesn't mean every other camera out there is worthless. At the very least stop throwing around ill-informed comments.

Also speaking to a Sony rep, he told me the reason for no internal 4k is because it is far from easy, especially with the cameras size and form, lack of heat sink... Think of how hot the BMPC gets just shooting ProRes HD with a s16 sensor, let alone 4k, let alone 10-bit internal! It's a lot of processing power; Sony already require SDXC cards for XAVC-S, they require SxS Pro+ cards for 2k/4k XAVC in their F5/55 as the available media at the time wasn't fast enough. Good codec, internal 4k, 10-bit internal etc. is not easy and far from a simple firmware update. Now, I have no doubt Canon could build a camera with those specs - bit why would they? Build a $3k DSLR that shoots 4k internally when their top of the range cinema camera can't even do that. Makes no sense. I wonder what will happen going forward with the cinema line. Surely the C500 and C300 will have to become one camera that shoots 4k internally.

This is exactly right. When the image difference between a $1500 camera and a $12000 camera is negligible, it seems silly to consider the more expensive option, unless it offers specific things that you need (and can afford). Not only that, but both Panasonic and Sony are much bigger companies with so many more arms to their business that it's almost impossible to compare unless you can isolate specifically their camera divisions, and even then it's not a fair playing field as Sony and Panasonic are relatively new players compared to Canon. Panasonic are struggling with their smartphones, so it affects their bottom line. That has nothing to do with their camera division. Sony has a record company, a movie studio, movie distributors, gaming, pro audio, televisions, phones and tablets, computers.... as well as cameras. It seems odd to compare the profitability of that company with one that only makes cameras, printers and photocopiers.

It's hard to make a product that the internet is happy with! The issue, as I see it, is still their Cinema EOS line and the fact that they do not want to cannibalise it. Bring out a 7D with C-Log, and why would you spend all that extra money on a C100? Not to mention that consumer digital cameras tend to operate with very slim profit margins to begin with.

Yes, that's because most of the 'pros' are not testing cameras, and are instead out shooting! I do camera tests - yes. And I attend camera launches and I get hands on with the new gear. I read about cameras, and I have colleagues and friends who I trust to tell me their thoughts on cameras. I often call up rental houses and say 'hey I'm shooting this and this is what I need... what have you got?' or 'we don't have a budget for an Alexa but we need high frame rates preferably at 2k or 4k because it's for cinema - what do you suggest that's available?' The reason is I'm busy shooting, rather than spending my entire year testing cameras. I do have downtime every now and then, but most of it is spent with my family and friends, some of it is spent on camera tests for the next project, and of course some of it is spent on forums like this ;) Now, I don't think Canon nor the 1Dc are necessarily 'pieces of shit' - however, I'm not making a habit of shooting with them, and certainly wouldn't buy one. I've only ever used the C300 when I've been employed as an operator and the DP has hired C300s because we didn't have the budget for anything else. I don't like the cameras. They suits some people's needs, just as the 1Dc does. But personally I'm not a fan. I think it's silly to stifle conversation about how a company can improve their technology. Maybe things are worded too harshly, but hey - it's the internet. If there's one thing Canon does better than Sony, they seem to listen to their customers more. I've never known Sony to bring out called for updates to firmware, but Canon does all the time. And I think it would be silly to talk only about how 'amazing' or 'adequate' Canon's cameras are, especially when there are cameras out there that are challenging them both on spec and price. Now, of course it's easy to have your viewpoint skewed by what you own. And I see it a lot here, even though I've only been here a short time. People who own Nikon talk about how much better their Nikon camera is at everything. People who own Canon talk about how much better their Canon is at everything. I think that is an awful way to spur discussion. People often don't want to be told what's wrong with what they have. Which is part of human nature. But it's not helpful to anyone. I think a healthy discussion about what cameras are capable of is helpful to everyone. This is why I don't want to own an expensive camera - I don't want my viewpoint skewed. I want to be able to look at the image produced by a camera and decide whether or not I like with no reservations based on what I've bought. If I bought one, it would be to make money from renting it out, and I would still choose a camera based on the project for the things I shoot. Canon is much closer to a Kodak situation than you would think. The product lineup of the entire company is not dissimilar to the way Kodak was. Kodak didn't anticipate or innovate. I don't think Canon is in the same danger as Kodak - at least for now. But if they fail to innovate in a way that's determined by the market - they could easily find themselves struggling in the camera dept. Now, of course - we can give Canon the benefit of the doubt. But they just released a C100mkII that isn't really all that much better specced for video than an A7s. I mean the A7s does 4k at half the price. The GH4 does 4k for even less. Why should we not talk about how they're falling behind the competition - just because they're the almighty Canon and we should trust what they say? And why should we start with hate blog posts about Apple? Because you don't own any Apple products?

I think the point he was trying to make is that it actually doesn't really matter, in the grand scheme of things, what camera you use - especially if you're starting out! Cinematography is more about the way you use the camera, not as much about the camera itself. Camera selection is important, but the reality is people get too bogged down in the technical side of things, rather than going out and simply shooting with what they have. I know I'm saying this on a blog that talks all about camera technology.. But still! The point remains ;) If someone can get an image out of a T3i that looks good, or that suits what they're looking for in a camera - then that's great for them. Personally, a T3i doesn't suit my needs or wants in a camera. But that doesn't make it all-round a bad choice. Someone with a keen eye, who can light beautifully, frame incredible compositions, use focus in a creatively pleasing way, and has a good Production Designer to design the frames will get better results on a T3i than someone who has never used a camera before shooting on an Alexa. Yes there are better cameras than a T3i. But if someone wants to learn to be a Cinematographer, I'd rather they pick up a T3i and practice their lighting, than spend time researching marginally better options.

Do you also have many leather-bound books and an apartment that smells of rich mahogany? C'mon, I've shot Alexa in Arriraw, RED Dragon, F65, and shot a lot of 35mm and 16mm. Commercials, TV and even films. I generally view 2k and 4k footage I've shot on calibrated monitors, and in some cases on cinema screens. But I'm not going to get into a pissing match about whether a $12,000 camera is better than a $1500 camera and try and prove to everybody that 'I'm kind of a big deal' because I'm not. Im a guy who shoots things and uses the best camera for the job. I also don't invest in expensive cameras because I prefer to choose the camera that suits the project, rather than get overzealous about the camera I have purchased, and force it on every project because I need to justify my purchase. I own an A7s because it's cheap and gives me a good picture. If I only shot corporate stuff, and shot it on a daily basis, maybe I'd invest in a camera - but I work regularly for many of the major production houses here, and very few own a camera. Many have invested in some lenses, but they rarely purchase their own camera, because even a production house that makes film or commercials every single day of the year knows that every production has different needs. The A7s isn't really toy feeling. Compared to an Alexa or Epic, maybe - but IMO, even Blackmagics (as well as most/all video SLRs) feel like (and sometimes perform like) toys, especially when you compare them to an Alexa or a 435, for example. The A7s has some of the best low light performance on the market. Sure, maybe it's a tad noisier than other cameras, but I'm yet to see a single other camera that can see in the dark like this one can! You can't even rate a RED higher than about 320ISO without getting unacceptable noise. I push my A7s to ISO3200 in Slog and I'm relatively happy - not like the Epic which I'm cautious of rating at 800, let alone any higher! Of course the Epic has other uses and features. I wouldn't use an A7s as my A cam on a high budget commercial. But man it gives a damn good image for such a cheap camera! Oh right, you mean unless you get the necessary adapter to put those lenses on the camera which contains electronic control... Also, I know you have 150 lenses - did you know that you actually don't need to buy every single lens on the market available for a camera to actually be able to shoot with it? I have 8 primes for my A7s that all up cost me much less than $5000-$10000! Suits me fine - I've never had autofocus, electronic iris or lens stabilisation when shooting with lenses on any actual cinema camera (I know - shock, horror!). Also, I've got a PL adapter for my A7s so I can put Master Primes on it if I wanted! I'd take an A7s with Master Primes over a 1Dc with Canon still glass any/every day of the week. The fact that a comparison doesn't exist does not mean the 1Dc is inherently better. It just means no-one has looked to see if it is or not. Man, you sure sound like a Canon fanboy. Kodak went down the same path. They failed to innovate with their cameras, and coasted along thinking they would be fine, and they failed! Kodak invented the digital camera, and in 2005 were the number 1 selling camera manufacturer in the US! But they failed to anticipate, failed to innovate, and look where they are now.

Have a look here: http://prolost.com/blog/2014/7/4/sony-a7s-days-1-2.html Under 'The Pictures' heading. It's not a very scientific test, but shows what you can get out of the camera.

The worst looking camera ever??!! I can tell you with absolute certainty that the A7s looks better than DigiBeta cameras ;)

That's weird! A friend of mine works for a company who have developed two arms of the business - a high-end wedding photography and videography arm, and a high-end corporate client video arm. They bought about 4 A7s' and it's all they shoot on. Never had a complaint!

Er... based on what? And using what Picture Profile(s)? I could put the A7s into the 709 picture mode and then assert that the 5D has better dynamic range! 14-bits does trump 8-bits. However, you'd be surprised how far you can push those 8-bits in XAVC-S. It really holds up much better than H.264 8-bit footage I've shot in the past. The OP doesn't sound like they're pushing their grades too far anyway.

The fact that you don't like the size/ergonomics and brightness of the EVF is totally viable and indeed you should make up your mind based on your own needs. But it doesn't make the A7s, or mirrorless cameras in general a bad camera or bad choice. It's different to work with, sure - and if you're used to Canon then it will take a bit of getting used to. But that doesn't make it a bad camera. I think the C300 has the worst ergonomics of a video camera ever made, and the image is barely better than anSLR. I would never use it - but many do and have made great things with it. The fact that I don't like it does not mean it is an awful camera, or that the electronics inside it are bad. It just means it doesn't suit my needs and what I want from a camera.

The top of the range Amira.

You don't have to switch to any camera if you don't want to. IMO, the hardest part about Slog2 is exposing it correctly without a LUT and/or false colour. Zebras work in Slog2 and you can set them to wherever you want (you could set them to show over-exposure if you wanted, so you know that as soon as you see a zebra you're overexposing). Slog2 is different to grade. If there's one thing the A7s has going for it, it's dynamic range. You can shoot raw all you want, you're still stuck with the camera's inherent dynamic range. The A7s has a lot of DR, as well as the ability to comfortably shoot at 800+ ISO. I would never have pushed any of my Canon DSLRs over about 400 ISO for video except in the most dire circumstances. You can convert XAVC-S to ProRes or whatever you need (though not DNG). You don't necessarily need to learn Resolve if you don't want to, but I'm not sure how Lightroom plays with XAVC-S files. If you use an NLE or colouring software that have levels on them, then you can certainly adjust the levels. But again, it's different to grade. It's more than just pushing the levels a bit. The A7s isn't very noisy at all at 3200 ISO. http://blog.kasson.com/?p=6172 http://www.lonelyspeck.com/sony-a7s-astrophotography-review/ (scroll down to ISO performance - though the above link shows the camera is not ISOless) That's a question only you can answer. Hire an A7s or borrow one from a friend and see how you like it. I did a lot of research before buying my A7s and selling my Canon SLR. The Sony rep I was liaising with suggested I take a 64GB SDXC card into a store and shoot some XAVC-S footage onto it and see for myself what it was like to work with as I was worried about the 8-bit recording. I'm used to Slog so was comfortable grading it. Try it out if you want. I made the switch. You might not want to. It totally depends on the work you do and what you like in a camera. Just make sure you don't let fanboys on either side sway you in either direction. Choose what's right for you. http://***URL not allowed***/dynamic-range-sony-a7s-vs-arri-amira-canon-c300-5d-mark-iii-1dc-panasonic-gh4/

Of course - there are and always have been better and more practical options. But certainly not at a price:feature point that many will accept! You can purchase a handycam, or even a prosumer cam but you get a tiny sensor (deep DOF) and limited dynamic range. You could buy a cinema camera, but then you're spending a lot of money! DSLRs have become the de facto entry level video camera because they are cheap and give an image that's closer to what many might call cinematic out of the box. That and the fact that you can do video and photo on the one machine, which means you don't need to take two cameras.

It's perhaps worth noting that all the Marvel films have been either all shot on, or mostly shot on film with the exception of the latest ones (Iron Man 3, Captain America: Winter Soldier and Thor: Dark World, Avengers) which were Alexa. All of the more recent Marvel films (i.e. post '08) seem to have been lensed with Panavision lenses. I imagine the main unit and likely 2nd unit will have shot Alexa, whilst 2nd or 3rd units shooting Epic, or maybe for VFX. The BMPCC and GoPro as stunt/action/disposable cams. I imagine the C500 is for splinter units, VFX pickups, or maybe for run 'n' gun shooting style. I remember the first Captain America, 90% of it was film; though I could not pick the difference between the Alexa and film shots on the big screen. There were 2-3 5DmkIII shots that were really easy to pick (for me anyway).

I'm not sure what your current rig is, but my plan will be to use the Shogun as an EVF/on-board to operate from; or alternatively my AC can use it as a focus pulling monitor if I do end up going that route. Personally, I'd have preferred the O7Q, but doesn't look like that will be supporting 4k thru HDMI in the near future..

I've used this rig with the BMPCC and am really not a fan. You have to have an EVF/external monitor with this, as the camera just ends up in a place that makes it almost impossible to see/operate otherwise. The hand grip is okay, but I can see it getting in the way of the A7s' record button. On the BMPCC, the record button is just a couple cm out of reach of my finger, which is frustrating as it means I have to use my left hand to hit record. There's only one screw thread, and it loosens really easily. This means that halfway through a shoot, suddenly your camera will loosen and start swivelling. And in addition to all that, the whole rig is totally unbalanced, so it's so much work. It helps to steady shots as you can keep it on your shoulder, but the whole thing is really front heavy. It's great for the first 5 minutes, but try operating a whole day with this thing - it becomes almost impossible as your arm tires out. This would be good if you're used to the prosumer cameras that had really sturdy top handles that you would use to operate rather than on your shoulder - a la Z1/V1, DVX/HVX etc. But if you're used to something that sits on the shoulder and balances relatively well, then you'll hate this rig!

I'm confused - if you're delivering in 25p, why would you shoot in 24p...??? If you're in PAL land, the only time you would ever need to shoot 24p is if you were delivering for cinema, and in that case you would also be delivering in 24p....