We Are There... The Current Top Hybrids Are Good Enough

[thebrothersthre3]

If you are lighting the shot it doesn't matter that much what camera you use (to an extent obviously lol). 

Its reached a point where digital has gotten as good as film(arguably of course) and now the tiny prosumer cameras are closing the gap with cinema cameras. 

1 minute ago, KnightsFan said:

I shot with an xt3 and an nx1 on a recent project, and while the xt3's footage was visibly better in 4k 24 when i pixel peeped, i really can't say it really made a difference for my project. Of course having that quality in higher frame rates and a faster readout are real benefits, but even the nx1 peaked for diminishing returns in terms of color, compression, and dynamic range. At this point the biggest upgrades i want are for workflow: timecode, ergonomics, false color, and such.

I think the GH5S has all of those. XT3 beats it on other levels tho

[odie]

8 hours ago, thebrothersthre3 said:

If you are lighting the shot it doesn't matter that much what camera you use (to an extent obviously lol). 

Its reached a point where digital has gotten as good as film(arguably of course) and now the tiny prosumer cameras are closing the gap with cinema cameras. 

I think the GH5S has all of those. XT3 beats it on other levels tho

Film has an undefinable quality that is not related at all to digital 

 

but as previously stated the choices in digital are numerous 

[thebrothersthre3]

2 hours ago, odie said:

Film has an undefinable quality that is not related at all to digital 

 

but as previously stated the choices in digital are numerous 

Like I said it's debatable. In terms of color and dynamic range it's pretty equal though. In comparison with the pro digital cameras used on movies like Attack of the Clones especially.

[Mokara]

On 12/7/2018 at 8:04 PM, kaylee said:

Incorrect! 

There are minor differences due to the exact composition of the pigments used in the filters, but otherwise it is correct, assuming you are using real RAW and not preprocessed data. Those minor differences should be correctable if you know what you are doing. I have a suspicion that a lot of people are calling debeyered but otherwise not processed data "RAW" when that is not RAW.

On 12/8/2018 at 5:19 AM, odie said:

Film has an undefinable quality that is not related at all to digital 

 

but as previously stated the choices in digital are numerous 

If it is undefinable then it is not a quality.

It is like saying that people born from the aristocracy have an "undefinable quality" when in actual fact they are just like everyone else, but happen to have been born from parentage that has some historical significance. The snob effect

On 12/4/2018 at 8:23 PM, IronFilm said:

I think @Jonesy Jones means that the stills part of a "hybrid" camera doesn't matter to a film production. 

That is irrelevant, a hybrid is still a hybrid. The OP is talking about how those cameras can be used. The point was that hybrids can be used for feature production, as evidenced by examples.

[AlexTrinder96]

Looks like Proud Mary was also shot with Sony Mirrorless Hyrbids...

https://***URL removed***/forums/thread/4244539

 

 

Like The Possession of Hannah Grace , it is a SONY pictures film.

 https://www.newsshooter.com/2018/12/05/the-possession-of-hannah-grace-a-feature-film-shot-entirely-on-the-sony-a7sii/ (Credit to  @Kisaha)

 

 

[kaylee]

15 hours ago, Mokara said:

There are minor differences

not minor

15 hours ago, Mokara said:

but otherwise it is correct, assuming you are using real RAW and not preprocessed data. Those minor differences should be correctable if you know what you are doing. I have a suspicion that a lot of people are calling debeyered but otherwise not processed data "RAW" when that is not RAW.

jfc

15 hours ago, Mokara said:

If it is undefinable then it is not a quality

certainly you perceive things that you cannot define? like beauty? hell, we're not too clear on gravity tbh

15 hours ago, Mokara said:

That is irrelevant,

[zerocool22]

21 hours ago, AlexTrinder96 said:

Looks like Proud Mary was also shot with Sony Mirrorless Hyrbids...

https://***URL removed***/forums/thread/4244539

 

 

Like The Possession of Hannah Grace , it is a SONY pictures film.

 https://www.newsshooter.com/2018/12/05/the-possession-of-hannah-grace-a-feature-film-shot-entirely-on-the-sony-a7sii/ (Credit to  @Kisaha)

 

 

Sony just stop releasing shit like this for your own sake. It looks like shit, the effects are shit, havent seen the movie but looks like the acting and the story are shit aswell (based on the trailer).

[DBounce]

8 hours ago, zerocool22 said:

Sony just stop releasing shit like this for your own sake. It looks like shit, the effects are shit, havent seen the movie but looks like the acting and the story are shit aswell (based on the trailer).

I'll pass. But what does this mean? Is Sony trying to legitimize their hybrid cameras as professional motion picture creations tool? And if so, why? Are they planning to put some hardcore powerhouse sensors into their hybrid bodies? Is this a foreshadowing of the blurring of the lines between dedicated cinema cameras and hybrids?

[webrunner5]

So do you really think the sensors in the a7SII, a9 & RX0 are worse than say a FS100, or a F3, FS5, etc. were 5 years ago? Just because they are in a small body has nothing to do with output. Sure ease of use is worse but that can be overcome. We have cameras now you could not have dreamed of 5 years ago, for a price the average person can afford.

This 10bit crap is so overblown it is not funny. Like every camera that has been out for years or now that is only 8bit is shit? Like you can't shoot the damn scene correctly in camera? Auto WB, BB is so good now you don't even need charts, light meters anymore on most stuff. If you can't shoot good footage now you are the one that is F uped not the camera.

[Django]

I know of another unreleased project shot by an award-winning indie director that also used a bunch of A7S2's for principal photography.

They also used a camera per lens approach which allowed to shoot in multicam in order to get more authentic dynamic/energy on scenes & save on budget. 

A7S2 was chosen as the film was shot only using natural light and contains many night scenes. In that aspect A7S2 is pretty unique with it's still incredible low-light performance.

Overall i think they achieved what they wanted but the producer did share with me some horror stories of camera failures (they went through at least a dozen bodies).

They eventually had to pickup FS5/7's to complete the film (and FWIW their next project will be shot with 'camera per lens' but on C200's).

My feelings towards this topic is that yes, the latest hybrids are technically capable of giving beautiful big screen IQ and can even do tricks big cine cams can't, however the reliability, ergonomics, rigging etc of a lot of these consumer cams is still the biggest risk/limitation, especially for big productions or even pro events where failure isn't an option. The sub-$10K compact cine cams are imo where the real breakthrough has happened for pro video as they give ARRI/REDS/VARICAMS etc a run for their money. The latest mirrorless hybrids can be good B-cam solutions to those though, especially for drone/gimbal shots.

[thebrothersthre3]

Yeah its not that you can't shoot a good looking picture on a GH4, the question is why would you. Budget is the obvious answer, but on most professional productions renting an actual cinema camera, is not a significant cost. 

[webrunner5]

1 hour ago, thebrothersthre3 said:

Yeah its not that you can't shoot a good looking picture on a GH4, the question is why would you. Budget is the obvious answer, but on most professional productions renting an actual cinema camera, is not a significant cost. 

It is if you keep it for weeks. Sure one day why not.

[ade towell]

This fella is filming and directing great stuff on his own with the GH4

http://www.dvxuser.com/V6/showthread.php?362822-Watching-my-GH4-shot-feature-film-on-the-big-screen!

[thebrothersthre3]

1 hour ago, webrunner5 said:

It is if you keep it for weeks. Sure one day why not.

Not compared to other costs though on a bigger production. 

[zerocool22]

13 hours ago, DBounce said:

I'll pass. But what does this mean? Is Sony trying to legitimize their hybrid cameras as professional motion picture creations tool? And if so, why? Are they planning to put some hardcore powerhouse sensors into their hybrid bodies? Is this a foreshadowing of the blurring of the lines between dedicated cinema cameras and hybrids?

Maybe, lets wait and see. Not only sensor but hopefully capable codecs as well. Ayone watched bad blood on netflix? Its shot with Red dragon camera's, and I had to say it did not look like cinema at all. The lighting was ok I think, but the image was way too sharp for my taste, it looked like a soap opera. (I watched it on a 4K tv though, so maybe thats part of the problem) 

9 hours ago, ade towell said:

This fella is filming and directing great stuff on his own with the GH4

http://www.dvxuser.com/V6/showthread.php?362822-Watching-my-GH4-shot-feature-film-on-the-big-screen!

I applaud his work with the GH4, but it is nowhere near something I would pay money for to watch it. If I did I would want it back. I wish somebody would come along with a digital camera with a soft film grain image but high DR with smooth highlight rolloff and amazing colors, 1080p is all I need + 60fps. 

10 hours ago, webrunner5 said:

It is if you keep it for weeks. Sure one day why not.

I often wonder why people would rent camera's. Even studio's, or production houses. Just buy the camera and use it, when done sell it again. I will bet it will be a lot cheaper. 

[ade towell]

2 hours ago, zerocool22 said:

I applaud his work with the GH4, but it is nowhere near something I would pay money for to watch it. If I did I would want it back. I wish somebody would come along with a digital camera with a soft film grain image but high DR with smooth highlight rolloff and amazing colors, 1080p is all I need + 60fps. 

The point being that he has gone out there and made a 'good enough' looking film with an older generation hybrid whilst you're wishing and waiting for a camera that has to all intents and purposes (as far as 99.9% of the audience is concerned) been available for quite some time.

Whether that film is worth watching will come down to the script, acting, sound etc - it won't be the camera that is holding it back

[zerocool22]

18 minutes ago, ade towell said:

The point being that he has gone out there and made a 'good enough' looking film with an older generation hybrid whilst you're wishing and waiting for a camera that has to all intents and purposes (as far as 99.9% of the audience is concerned) been available for quite some time.

Whether that film is worth watching will come down to the script, acting, sound etc - it won't be the camera that is holding it back

I have read this comment a lot these days. But no example looks good enough to compete with even arthouse films. Sure script, acting and sound is reallly important, and maybe this is a personal thing for me as maybe I have watched way too many movies. But if something is off imagewise I get instantly turned off which offcourse is not only the camera but also the skills of the cinematographer/colorist(as I have seen bad look Alexa films as well, you have to go above and beyond to make this thing look bad). Everything in a movie should be on a high level if one thing is off the movie is off. So using a great script, great actors, great audio but you are using a cheap camera, that sure is a waste of everybodies time.

[Anaconda_]

18 minutes ago, zerocool22 said:

So using a great script, great actors, great audio but you are using a cheap camera, that sure is a waste of everybodies time.

I mostly agree, but this film was made on an iPhone and picked up loads of awards and nominations. The director's next movie landed Willem Dafoe, so the cheap camera hasn't held him back.

https://www.imdb.com/title/tt3824458/awards?ref_=tt_awd

I personally didn't like it because of the acting, but that's my issue not the camera's

[zerocool22]

6 minutes ago, Anaconda_ said:

I mostly agree, but this film was made on an iPhone and picked up loads of awards and nominations. The director's next movie landed Willem Dafoe, so the cheap camera hasn't held him back.

https://www.imdb.com/title/tt3824458/awards?ref_=tt_awd

I personally didn't like it because of the acting, but that's my issue not the camera's

Yeah tangerine mainly worked because it worked as reality smartphone footage I think.I could not bear to watch it though. I saw "Searching" last week, this blew me away, all cheap cameras webcams but it worked flawlessly.

[DBounce]

6 hours ago, zerocool22 said:

Maybe, lets wait and see. Not only sensor but hopefully capable codecs as well. Ayone watched bad blood on netflix? Its shot with Red dragon camera's, and I had to say it did not look like cinema at all. The lighting was ok I think, but the image was way too sharp for my taste, it looked like a soap opera. (I watched it on a 4K tv though, so maybe thats part of the problem) 

I often wonder why people would rent camera's. Even studio's, or production houses. Just buy the camera and use it, when done sell it again. I will bet it will be a lot cheaper. 

Most 4K TVs have a feature that generates  extra frames to “smooth” the video and reduce motion blur. It’s called by different names on the various brands... you need to turn it off.

I think they rent to simplify taxes. Purchased items are amortized for depreciation. It’s less complicated to simply write off an expense.