IronFilm: Red, Sony, Canon, Panasonic

[jcs]

 

@IronFilm, new thread for new topic)

Canon example I recently shot: 1DX II and custom picture style, SOOC, no post work (1080p):

Mystery camera:

Quick CC to set pure white to white, quick try at making skin look less video-y (also note green/yellow cast in skin now that white is closer to white):

Reminds me of issues I had with Sony A7S I and FS700 (not so much with A7S II, which I found to work pretty well if WB set correctly and decent lights).

Low CRI/TLCI lights can also be hurting overall color and especially skintones.

 

 

[IronFilm]

Oh hey, I've got a whole thread with my username in the title! :-P 

 

1 hour ago, jcs said:

Reminds me of issues I had with Sony A7S I and FS700 (not so much with A7S II, which I found to work pretty well if WB set correctly and decent lights).

Low CRI/TLCI lights can also be hurting overall color and especially skintones.

From memory there was an HMI shining from the kitchen window on the left, I kinda forget about the rest used. 
I probably should upload soon the BTS I filmed for my vblog, might jog my memory about the lighting. 

[EthanAlexander]

Since this is for broadcast (I think?), that means probably a C300 or FS7... And the colors definitely seem more Sony than Canon so...

FS7.

I'll message you the address to send my prize money. Thanks.

 

BTW great job on the sound!

[Kisaha]

@IronFilm

Yeah, great sound, what was your sound kit and technique?

[IronFilm]

My kit is listed here:
http://ironfilm.co.nz/sound/

Technique is nothing too special? Just using my ears and brain, with a boom and lav on talent. 

[Kisaha]

@IronFilm what lab and int mic?

I am still trying to decide what is going to be my next int mic after my Oktava. Audix/Neumann MT 185, or sell a kidney and buy the MKH50 (it is 1600€ here. Do the conversion and you will be surprised! More expensive than Schoeps)

[jcs]

1 hour ago, Kisaha said:

@IronFilm what lab and int mic?

I am still trying to decide what is going to be my next int mic after my Oktava. Audix/Neumann MT 185, or sell a kidney and buy the MKH50 (it is 1600€ here. Do the conversion and you will be surprised! More expensive than Schoeps)

The Audix is a good deal. Some say 80% of the Schleps CMC641. I use both; they are pretty similar. See reviews here https://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/242661-REG/Audix_SCX1_HC_SCX1_HC_Microphone.html?sts=pi

Might still be worth it if more expensive in your country (or purchase overseas and have shipped).

Why get the MKH50 over the CMC641 if it costs more?

[IronFilm]

2 hours ago, Kisaha said:

@IronFilm what lab and int mic?

I am still trying to decide what is going to be my next int mic after my Oktava. Audix/Neumann MT 185, or sell a kidney and buy the MKH50 (it is 1600€ here. Do the conversion and you will be surprised! More expensive than Schoeps)

Can't remember if it was an Oktava or a Samson C02. I'd need to look up what I wrote in my metadata.

Lav was a stock Sony UWP-D11

 

If I was you I'd stick with the Oktava, until you can afford a MKH50 or Scheops.

As what other gear gaps are more pressing for you?

 

1 hour ago, jcs said:

Why get the MKH50 over the CMC641 if it costs more?

 

Robustness?

[Kisaha]

@jcs the only spec that Audix is better than the Neumann is its sensitivity (which is not a small thing of course). Neumann to me sounds a bit more "Schoeps"-esque. I have never see/hear the Audix from close, but from samples I have heard it has some more coloration, which bring's us to..

.. in our industry here, productions favor specific "sound", and the "Sennheiser" sound is the most sought after. There is just limited sound post production, definitely not much EQ-ing and the such (except films). Plus, Sennheiser microphones are tough as nails, and work in most conditions. Very quiet, and very sensitive too.

I am really tempted to go with the Audix for now (the plan is to keep it as a backup or B kit, and move Oktava to C option, eventually), I have heard some of your stuff you have posted before, it is just I haven't seen, or hear any personally!

@IronFilm

those stock Sonys are really good (for what they are)! Just finished a TV series for a major network here, and it was almost live TV, had 2-3 presenters at all time, and a couple more random people, plus boom (416 outside, Oktava in some interiors, but inside it was mostly radios). It was a nightmare to shoot, and Sonys did the job.

1 of the Sony's kit broke (we had 6) so I am consider buying another 2, the pro version with the better Sony capsule. I was that impressed.

That, about waiting for the better mic, is a very wise advice though. How is the saying. Buy cheap - buy twice?!

cheers guys, good to talk some sound here from time to time!

what camera the webisode was shot, then?!

 

 

[IronFilm]

 

Is this a "filmic" look? Or does this series have a "video" look?

[jcs]

19 minutes ago, IronFilm said:

 

Is this a "filmic" look? Or does this series have a "video" look?

Looks decent. The F55 can be matched to Alexa with enough work (at least in the studio).

[IronFilm]

5 hours ago, jcs said:

Looks decent. The F55 can be matched to Alexa with enough work (at least in the studio).

Ha! Did you look up what it was shot on, or did you already know? ;-)

I posted it because I get a little tired sometimes of discussions  of higher end cameras as "cinematic", or writing off various cameras as *not* cinematic.

Basically we're living in an amazing time of abundance, with a luxury of choices when it comes to cameras. 

*Any* dedicated video camera with interchangeable lens mount and 4K is a top notch choice that can be "cinematic",

As your lighting/grading/composition/movement/filters/lenses/etc will all add up to making a much much greater difference than whatever camera you choose from those options!

If a person is not happy their results are not "cinematic" with such a camera, then very likely the problems lies with themselves! Not the camera body. 

[jcs]

8 hours ago, IronFilm said:

Ha! Did you look up what it was shot on, or did you already know? ;-)

I posted it because I get a little tired sometimes of discussions  of higher end cameras as "cinematic", or writing off various cameras as *not* cinematic.

Basically we're living in an amazing time of abundance, with a luxury of choices when it comes to cameras. 

*Any* dedicated video camera with interchangeable lens mount and 4K is a top notch choice that can be "cinematic",

As your lighting/grading/composition/movement/filters/lenses/etc will all add up to making a much much greater difference than whatever camera you choose from those options!

If a person is not happy their results are not "cinematic" with such a camera, then very likely the problems lies with themselves! Not the camera body. 

Netflix Originals are most likely Sony or Red because of the "4K" requirement (which seems like a political thing against ARRI domination, and perhaps a reason behind Steve Yedlin's recent resolution test. Alexa 65 is rental only and not widely available). Sony pro video cameras have been traditionally more reliable vs. Red (which in recent time is also pretty reliable), and thus Sony is a good guess. And then I looked it up ;).

Watching again on the desktop with a high-end 32" calibrated 4K Dell display (vs. on my iPhone when originally replied), it does have that Sony video look. It's suppressed mostly by using low-contrast/glow lens filters (see glow on very bright areas), expert lighting, and expert grading.

The recent Sony camera which doesn't have that inherent video look is the F65. Using the F65 for a Netflix production is probably too expensive (storage) and maybe the camera size itself is an issue (It's dumb, but people choose gear based partly on how it looks. The F55 is a lot sexier than the F65. This was pointed out by Lucy's DP when they chose the F65 vs. ARRI and Red based purely on image quality (Red used for some shots)).

Can I get results I like with Sony, sure, with a lot of work in post (A7S II):

Simple camera-specific things that help make an image 'filmic or cinematic':

1. High color fidelity: lots of colors and color variation. For the final 8-bit render, lots of color/tonal variation is used and maximized. This is especially important for skintones.
2. If we remove color and view the image in grayscale, we look for tonal variation in light & shadow, and texture detail, especially in skin.
3. High intensity white is rarely if ever seen. In a sense, filmic tends to be lower dynamic range than real life.
4. Highlights don't clip very often, and when they do, it tends to be a smooth effect vs. a hard clip.
5. Noise adds texture and even when it's subtle does something to make the brain think the experience is more organic, more analog, vs. digital. Perhaps acting like temporal dithering in a way.
6. Motion cadence and motion blur- more subtle, though people notice differences in motion, some cameras are more pleasing than others.

Then we can add low-contrast/glow filters, lighting (most important), color grading/look, story, performance, sound (especially ADR and Foley), etc. to get the full filmic/cinematic experience. Shallow DOF is not filmic per se, as some directors love deep DOF, and ultimately depends on the story and emotion of the shot.

ARRI, Red, and Canon (in that order) tend to produce the most filmic look with the least effort (Black Magic is getting there, and once reliability and quality improves,  will be a contender). Sony and Panasonic don't look like ARRI, Red, or Canon (F65 and Varicam come closest).

We've all seen studio tests where a bunch of cameras are graded to match and it's hard to tell them apart. For actual productions, the cameras that produce the best results with the least effort, are the most forgiving of errors (exposure etc.), ultimately produce the best results over time. And we can see why ARRI dominates, and why ARRI in general looks better than all the rest. It just takes the least effort. Red looks pretty good lately but still hasn't matched ARRI (and also takes more work in post). In the next tier down, Canon takes less effort than Sony or Panasonic. When the C300 II was priced higher, the FS7 got a brief boost because of the slomo craze, however now that the C300 II price has come down, that's not the case anymore. Look on eBay and see all the FS7's for sale (a bunch last I checked) vs. C300 II (none last I checked). You can also see true value by studying used prices. The 5D3 held it's value for a very long time (and still does relative to similar Sony and Panasonic cameras). 5D3 raw looks better to me than the F55 (but not the F65!).

So if you're letting us know the mystery camera was the F55, then all I can say is wow! A fun exercise would then be, how do we intentionally make footage look like video?

1. Use 'bad' lighting- low CRI/TLCI, unflattering light positions etc. (low CRI/TLCI will help with (4) below)
2. Clip the highlights and/or blow out the whites frequently, especially in skin
3. Go crazy on noise reduction- little or no noise, especially in skin. Reduce texture as much as possible to get that plastic look
4. Massively reduce the color space. Imagine an RGB cube, representing all the possible colors. Now compress/crush it so many original colors are now mapped to the same color (quantized). This is especially important for skintones: the less color variation/tonality the better. Underexposing and/or shooting in very low light and using aggressive in-camera NR can also help (both (3) & (4)), then bring it back up in post: low noise/detail and low color variation!
5. Enhance Magenta/Green instability. Meaning, make the highlights tend toward magenta and the shadows tend toward green. Make it impossible to get natural skintones without needing advanced / secondary color correction
6. Produce a motion cadence / motion blur that makes 24p look like 30- or 60p

That said, really "old" video, as in tape, has a fun look of its own, as with Kung Fury:

Still looks great, was shot on Canon 5D3 and Sony FS700 (slomo). The FS700 footage needed less "work" to look like video  (again, had one for a few years, great slomo, (internal) color was a challenge (external recorders look better)).

While I agree that just about any camera today can be made to look filmic/cinematic, ARRI, Red, and Canon (and even BM) make it easier than Sony or Panasonic. We each have our own priorities, and for me number one is skintones. I still use the Sony A7S II when I want to use something small and light (the 1DX II is really right there for usable low light with the A7S II). However, SOOC the A7S II footage will look more like video than the 1DX II (esp. with my custom Filmic Skin profile). In the studio with high quality lights, the A7S II, C300 II, and 1DX II can match fairly closely (would need secondary CC to fix A7S II lipstick):

As mentioned many times before, comparing Canon (or ARRI) to other cameras that one thinks looks good, is a useful exercise. Using a Canon camera as a reference for Sony is what led Andrew to start making picture profiles for Sony to match Canon. If Canon wasn't 'better', why bother?

ARRI and Canon aren't perfect, however so far they are tools which provide the most pleasing color/look (esp. skintones) vs. the other brands for the least effort. Is anyone selling Red, Sony, or Panasonic looks for ARRI or Canon cameras?  

 

 

 

[jcs]

Note that pretty much no one could guess the right camera order in the A7S II, C300 II, 1DX II side-by-side test on EOSHD:

And even on the more 'working professional' oriented dvxuser: http://www.dvxuser.com/V6/showthread.php?346890-1DX-II-A7S-II-C300-II-Compared-Side-by-Side

I'm currently selling a bunch of gear, GH4, A7S I, Panasonic and Sony lenses... These posts have me seriously thinking about selling the A7S II (along with Speedbooster and MB IV adapter), and getting an 80D or 5D4 as the light/travel camera to replace the A7S II.

In this 80D vs. Alexa demo: 

 

I have a pretty good idea how to get the 80D looking more like the Alexa with a custom picture style and WB offset. The 80D looks a lot more like the Alexa than the A7S II, it has DPAF, and can use all my Canon lenses natively (with AF). The 5D4 might make more sense if the 1080p is similar to the 1DX II (color/look is more important than the 4K crop).

If the A7S III has something close to Canon DPAF, it will be worth a look (especially since they'll likely improve color quality and IBIS as well). Until then I might let the A7S II and Sony lenses go too...

[IronFilm]

On 9/27/2017 at 1:41 PM, Kisaha said:

those stock Sonys are really good (for what they are)! Just finished a TV series for a major network here, and it was almost live TV, had 2-3 presenters at all time, and a couple more random people, plus boom (416 outside, Oktava in some interiors, but inside it was mostly radios). It was a nightmare to shoot, and Sonys did the job.

1 of the Sony's kit broke (we had 6) so I am consider buying another 2, the pro version with the better Sony capsule. I was that impressed.

Six is a lot! :-o Ha, then again I do have 5x UWP-D11 myself. Never yet used them all at once however, but have been using 4 of them + a Lectro the last couple of weeks.  (oh wait, I did once use all 5! Had one UWP-D11 receiver taking a feed from my 552, which was attached to a plant mic, then being sent back to my F4)

If you want a better mic capsule, why not start by getting some OST lavs?

http://www.oscarsoundtech.com/services.html

 

Pro Sony wireless, are you referring to the DWX series? 

I do wonder if DWX is compatible with their UWP gear, as then it would be tempting to buy one of those dual receiver DWR to use with my existing Sony transmitters as a half way upgrade step.

However my UWP-D11 transmitters are already so lightweight and their DWR is kinda bulky, I doubt if there is any weight savings  at all?

Sony DWRS02D weight = 9 oz (255.14 g)
Sony URXP03 = 6.21 oz (176 g) including batteries (for AA batteries, rechargeable Ni-MH cells around 31 g / 1.1 oz each)

Plus of course there is always the Sony URX-P03D 2-Channel Reciever: 7.4 oz (210 g)

Thus getting the Sony DWRS02D would be a backwards move for me in terms of saving weight in my bag. 

Unlike my Lectrosonics UCR210D which are hell bulky and heavy! Switching to Lectrosonics SR series would make a big difference for me. 

Anyway, when you look up the prices:

https://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/1259102-REG/sony_dwt_b01n_30_digital_bodypack_transmitter_566.html
https://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/879345-REG/Sony_DWRS02D_30_Dual_Channel_Digital.html

Not cheap! 

Don't see the point in it when I can buy a Lectrosonics SMQV for less:
https://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/877748-REG/Lectrosonics_smqv_21_SMQV_Super_Miniature_Wireless.html

The Lectrosonics SRc is a little more expensive:
https://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/1242605-REG/lectrosonics_src5p_b1_src5p_dual_channel_slot_mount.html

But you're certain to pick up a SRb for cheaper!
 

[Kisaha]

@IronFilm Wireless is a nightmare for me! So much expensive, when sound is not paid that well. I saw your rates on your site, I know they are NZ$, and life there must be slightly more expensive than here (and I am not that sure to be honest), but those rates are impossible, while we have to pay 52-78% of our income to the government, because they can't control the real tax frauds.

I am using as much as 5 simultaneously (and 1 for backup purposes), plus 1 boom. It is not the norm, but this is a very popular show on a major network here. The presenter will do a big show on an exotic island, and after that there is a possibility for another 22 episodes of the one we did, so we have to back up Sony kits, and as we must have at least 6-7 kits, with the possibility to damage some (they are brutal on the transmitters and their mics) we couldn't afford anything more expensive. I do not have anything to say to really fault them, they survived this 10-14 hour per day, for 40 days video marathon, and delivered. The only serious problem I had, it is their range, as they are 30 or 35mV and can't really compare with anyone really! I wish they were 50mV, but for the price, we have had something to give.

I have heard about those Oscars. Are they seriously that good? We have a few DPA, but they are more delicate for such a project, and we don't have so many anyway! I am consider the Sony ECM_77BMP, they used to be old school standards, but I am not sure if they worth it right now. They are a bit less expensive than the Sanken I was considering though, and can buy ready for use on the package I am mentioning right now ------->

The pro version I meant is this one https://www.bpm-media.de/en/ENG-Live-Production/Audio/Wireless-Systems/Wireless-Audio-Sets/Sony-UWP-D11-K42-Pro::370759.html it is the same as the ones you have, but it does include an additional mic, this https://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/161264-REG/Sony_ECM_77BMP_ECM_77BMP_Lavalier_Mic_with.html

It doesn't worth to buy anything else by Sony (or Sennheiser for that matter), when you use the P03D with 2 transmitters ain't true diversity anymore, and for a professional sound person (like us!) that is a no go (that is why it is so cheap). Also the similar Sennheiser line is old news right now, and the AVX series is for cameramen. The one I would be saving money for, will be this https://www.canford.co.uk/WISYCOM-WIRELESS-SYSTEMS-Radiomics it has the widest bandwidth, and they are becoming more and more popular in Europe at the moment. The only feature they do not have is the ability to record on the transmitter (Audio LTD does in Europe, of course Zaxcom). They are a bit less expensive than similar Lectros. Zaxcom are extremely expensive here. 

 

 

[IronFilm]

4 hours ago, Kisaha said:

@IronFilm Wireless is a nightmare for me! So much expensive, when sound is not paid that well. I saw your rates on your site, I know they are NZ$, and life there must be slightly more expensive than here (and I am not that sure to be honest), but those rates are impossible, 

You're in Greece? I guess with their whole economy going down the drain, it will be a struggle to get a good income no matter what area it is you're working in. 

As for my rates, they're a little on the lower end for professionals in my city. (which is lower than say Americans get!)
But also, the volume of full rate jobs I get is still relatively low :-/ I do a heck of a lot of lower budget jobs instead. 
I also struggle with ever getting a decent gear rental rate for what I'm bringing to a job, sigh (which has to make you wonder if it is wise all the money I spend on new gear..... !).
So still got a lot of work to do yet with lifting my earnings! But I'm feeling positive about the direction they're going in :-) 
I certainly feel ok about missing out on or turning down work if their rates are too pathetically low. (like recently a web series which was going to only pay every crew member $150/day! Flat. All in. & all crew members the same. Seriously)

4 hours ago, Kisaha said:

while we have to pay 52-78% of our income to the government

Sadly, we're not actually as different as you think! :-o

I looked it up, in Greece government spending is 52% of the economy. In New Zealand it is 48%
 

[IronFilm]

4 hours ago, Kisaha said:

The only serious problem I had, it is their range, as they are 30 or 35mV and can't really compare with anyone really! I wish they were 50mV, but for the price, we have had something to give.

They're 30mW (not mV!).

Which isn't so bad....    you should make it very workable with care. Unless you're trying to send it to a sound cart a couple of rooms away?! But for bag usage, in the same room, should be no biggie. 

btw, I have Lectrosonics UM450, which has 250mW!! :-o

But in the end, size isn't what matters, it is how you use it ;-) 

As range is determined by both the transmitter (not just power matters, but other factors such as placement) and the receiver (such as having diversity, or using shark fins, etc).

[IronFilm]

9 hours ago, Kisaha said:

I am using as much as 5 simultaneously (and 1 for backup purposes), plus 1 boom. It is not the norm, but this is a very popular show on a major network here. The presenter will do a big show on an exotic island, and after that there is a possibility for another 22 episodes of the one we did, so we have to back up Sony kits, and as we must have at least 6-7 kits, with the possibility to damage some (they are brutal on the transmitters and their mics) we couldn't afford anything more expensive.

if you know one of the talent in particular is certain to abuse the fvck out of your lavs, and production won't cover costs for your gear, then just give them a shitty chinese ebay lav on their transmitter instead!

 

9 hours ago, Kisaha said:

I have heard about those Oscars. Are they seriously that good?

They seem to be the best option on the market if you're looking for something significantly better than your stock lav mics, but cheaper than say a Tram TR50

 

9 hours ago, Kisaha said:

I am consider the Sony ECM_77BMP, they used to be old school standards, but I am not sure if they worth it right now. They are a bit less expensive than the Sanken I was considering though, and can buy ready for use on the package I am mentioning right now ------->

The pro version I meant is this one https://www.bpm-media.de/en/ENG-Live-Production/Audio/Wireless-Systems/Wireless-Audio-Sets/Sony-UWP-D11-K42-Pro::370759.html it is the same as the ones you have, but it does include an additional mic, this https://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/161264-REG/Sony_ECM_77BMP_ECM_77BMP_Lavalier_Mic_with.html

So basically you're suggesting instead of one stock lav:

https://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/608098-REG/Sony_ECM_V1BMP_ECM_V1BMP_Electret_Condenser_Lavalier.html

To instead get a different, but better stock lav:

https://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/161264-REG/Sony_ECM_77BMP_ECM_77BMP_Lavalier_Mic_with.html

 

Hmmmm... is it worth it though, vs just getting a Tram or Countryman? I'd rather go with one of those last two options. 

Or save a bundle and get OST lavs! (which are meant to be 95% of the quality at less than half the price)

http://www.oscarsoundtech.com/services.html

[IronFilm]

10 hours ago, Kisaha said:

It doesn't worth to buy anything else by Sony (or Sennheiser for that matter), when you use the P03D with 2 transmitters ain't true diversity anymore, and for a professional sound person (like us!) that is a no go (that is why it is so cheap). 

Sony and Sennheiser does have really high end wireless equipment, but by that point you're paying more or less the same price as if getting Lectrosonics/Zaxcom/Wisycom wireless. 

Yet will you be able to perform better, or get more work, or better paying work with the highest end Sennheiser/Sony wireless?

I doubt it, as they won't have the brand recognition for being high end wireless that Lectrosonics has. 

As for P03D not being true diversity it.... it is! :-) 
Maybe you heard that it only uses one antenna when you switch off one of the outputs? (to save battery power, as it turns off half the circuity in the receiver) And yes, that is true. But when both are running, then it has true diversity. (thus I'd probably never switch off the second half of the circuitry, if I only wanted to receive one, then I'd just use a standard single transmitter instead!)

 

10 hours ago, Kisaha said:

The one I would be saving money for, will be this https://www.canford.co.uk/WISYCOM-WIRELESS-SYSTEMS-Radiomics it has the widest bandwidth, and they are becoming more and more popular in Europe at the moment. The only feature they do not have is the ability to record on the transmitter (Audio LTD does in Europe, of course Zaxcom). They are a bit less expensive than similar Lectros.

Yes, Wisycom would be a solid choice to go with! Don't seem to be one of the most popular choices however, especially outside Europe. 

If I was in Europe, I'd also seriously be considering the new Audio Ltd A10:

 

http://jwsoundgroup.net/index.php?/topic/29641-new-audio-ltd-ddx1010/

http://audioltd.com/a10-introduction/

http://www.soundkit.co.uk/product/9004362/audio-ltd-a10-dual-receiver-slot-version

http://www.proavl-asia.com/product-news/?RID=dXT6Gld4a0

 

They look seriously seriously impressive. 

The transmitter can be controlled remotely via bluetooth and an iPhone or Android.

 

http://audioltd.com/a10/a10-remote/