utsira Posted July 5, 2015 Author Share Posted July 5, 2015 The golden era of hollywood started and died pretty much in unison with when John McTiernan started and stopped making films. Wow. There's a sentence I'd never thought I'd read. ;-P Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Oliver Daniel Posted July 5, 2015 Share Posted July 5, 2015 I agree with Rich to some extent.I see the camera/lens as a "character", and I certainly think in-camera stabilisation looks very, very artificial. I only see it useful for a standard static shot here and there. I personally use non-IS lenses. I shoot 98% of my work handheld and that added organic sort of energy from the handheld look adds a lot of character and style. Always have the camera supported, rather loosely. I experiment with canon-IS lenses for a rock video and ditched them straight away, because the image was just too static and boring!That said, there has to be a reason for your choices. IS lenses are very useful for run and gun, live stuff, weddings. Just depends what you are shooting, your personal tastes, style, clients etc.Some A7S owners think they don't have to light. Some lens owners would shoot an earthquake scene with IS on, just because 5 axis IBIS is so cool! Some of us know what we are doing and shoot with flaws on purpose. The latter are usually the much better filmmakers Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fuzzynormal Posted July 5, 2015 Share Posted July 5, 2015 I certainly think in-camera stabilisation looks very, very artificial. I only see it useful for a standard static shot here and there.I do entire shoots with 5-axis. I love it; works for me. I agree with your opinion that stabilization can look very artificial when the camera is moving. It's a tool on my EM5II that works very well for grabbing static shots without a tripod (which I do often) and for mimicking a short slider shot...but you have to practice at it, much like using a glide-cam type rig.For much of the corporate crap I do, I prefer a quiet lens. For those shoots I'm trying to keep what I do as neutral and transparent as possible. I don't want to call attention to my shooting and/or editing. I put their stories at the forefront and the production style is conservative.I also concur with your assertion, Implement the 5-axis technology in an intelligent pragmatic way and it's a wonderful thing. We all should keep in mind that a lot of shooters you see on the youtubes haven't a clue or are just messing around with testing, (5 minutes of walking though as park handheld? Who would use that in an edit anyway?) so judging by their work is a mistake. And let's be honest, a lot of prosumer enthusiasts can also be talent-limited, assuming that IS or OIS is some sort of panacea that'll make their footage wonderful. Um, no. If you stink as a shooter in general, your stabilized footage will do the same. (those Canadian guys from that camera store come to mind. They're gear geeks and can tell you the ins and outs of a camera's functionality, yes, but they're not the best shooters and the footage always looks subpar to what a particular camera can do.) Finally, don't forget, if your camera has 5-axis stabilization, you can always turn it off too. TheRenaissanceMan, Emanuel, Nikkor and 1 other 4 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fuzzynormal Posted July 5, 2015 Share Posted July 5, 2015 Wow. There's a sentence I'd never thought I'd read. ;-PMoreover, I'd like to know how McClane made it through that night on top of Nakatomi Plaza without bending the rules of physics a little bit. ;-)Funny perspective, Rich. Speaking of old fashioned, watch some classic films from eighty to a hundred years ago for a little "yippie-kay-yay." I'd recommend this one:http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0019760/?ref_=fn_al_tt_1 or some Keaton stuff ....before you lay down any more absolutes. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DBounce Posted July 6, 2015 Share Posted July 6, 2015 Well this might sound strange but I like to see work from both talented and hopeless filmmakers. This way I can better judge what a camera is capable of. Obviously a great filmmaker will have impressive results with anything halfway decent. But watching a few clueless wannabes gives me an idea of the camera's performance under less than ideal conditions. Another thing to note is generally more expensive gear is owned by more experienced users. There are many great examples of well shot FS7 footage on the web. But A7s is a mixed bag of talent, with a healthy dose of clueless amateurs thrown in. NX1 and GH4 perhaps even more so. But this can be constructive if you have a gauge of where your personal artistic talent rates at the time. I find Blackmagic cameras seem to look cinematic under most circumstances. Even in the hands of the truly talent challenged. That said, content then becomes the issue... And bad lighting... And framing... And story (or lack of story) etc... TheRenaissanceMan 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fuzzynormal Posted July 6, 2015 Share Posted July 6, 2015 watching a few clueless wannabes gives me an idea of the camera's performance under less than ideal conditions.This is very true. You have to be discriminating to discern it, but that can also be very telling and informative; always lots of scuttlebutt comments that have bad footage=bad camera, however. (and yes I just used the word scuttlebutt) mercer 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Ebrahim Saadawi Posted July 7, 2015 Share Posted July 7, 2015 I agree, seeing beginners testing the camera us actually more useful to me than seeing a professional production if I had to choose one to evaluate a camera's performance.A professional environment can make camera X look very filmic but in the hands of most people on the internet it's a video-like image (we know what camera is that but let's be general here) while anything shot on a Blackmagic camera for instance looks filmic even a soccer mum shooting her child, which does mean the BM produces more filmic results ultimately and gives a general aesthetic knowledge of the camera's performance under various environments. I like a camera that helps me, not the other way around, if I want a filmic image I want a camera that will give me a filmic image easier with less effort, just common sense, if I want a camera with pleasing skin tones I want a camera that gives me pleasing skin tones easier without fighting with the exposure and grade to prove I can do it (we know what camera here too). I appreciate newbie, ungraded, untouched, un-beautified, un-takented tests, they're actually more useful to me! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DBounce Posted July 7, 2015 Share Posted July 7, 2015 Looks like Sony has posted the A7Rii manual online. You can get it here. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Emanuel Posted July 8, 2015 Share Posted July 8, 2015 Finally, don't forget, if your camera has 5-axis stabilization, you can always turn it off too. LOL :-) Now in a serious note for those interested to listen about the 5-axis performance coupled to OIS/IS glass.Have you tested? Or only non-stabilized lenses?How does it work for you? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fuzzynormal Posted July 8, 2015 Share Posted July 8, 2015 anything shot on a Blackmagic camera for instance looks filmic even a soccer mum shooting her child, which does mean the BM produces more filmic results ultimatelyWell, a Sony camera will have a bunch of different frame rates and motion picture settings (sometimes including good 'ol 60i). If some dude just turns on the camera, sets the kit lens to f8, runs everything in automatic, and starts shooting with these non-cinematic video-ish settings, then you're going to see what a Sony cam can do to NOT look like film, but that doesn't mean it can't do it. Which, in turn, means that the motion images bmpcc produces doesn't necessarily create better filmic results ultimately. It just creates them by default. But maybe that's what you meant? That an operator can't do anything with a bmpcc besides film-style imaging? So they can't screw it up, as it were?I mean, I like the BM cams, but just because Sony has more frame rate options and default frame rate settings that make their footage look like a laserdisc from 1979, let's not condemn it to inferiority. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fuzzynormal Posted July 8, 2015 Share Posted July 8, 2015 ...the 5-axis performance coupled to OIS/IS glass...I tried my old EM5 with the Pany 150-300mm. Didn't like it. Weird results. In cam stabilization was enough. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheRenaissanceMan Posted July 8, 2015 Share Posted July 8, 2015 I tried my old EM5 with the Pany 150-300mm. Didn't like it. Weird results. In cam stabilization was enough.Those systems were never meant to work in tandem. Sony's OSS lenses are designed to work with 3 of the 5 axes of their IBIS. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Santiago de la Rosa Posted July 9, 2015 Share Posted July 9, 2015 Really like this video from Philip Bloom Looks very good at 250fps Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gregormannschaft Posted July 9, 2015 Share Posted July 9, 2015 Really like this video from Philip Bloom Looks very good at 250fpsThat's actually really good. Any idea how we got the background so black? Would love to experiment with a similar idea. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sudopera Posted July 9, 2015 Share Posted July 9, 2015 That's actually really good. Any idea how we got the background so black? Would love to experiment with a similar idea.From Bloom's blog:"I didn’t shoot the kitchen piece in S-Log 2 as I find it way too noisy in HFR mode, even using Cine 2 and Cinema colour it was noisy in the blacks, hence I graded it strongly to hide what I could! I will share some natural light outside stuff HFT, 4K and HD very soon!" Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
odie Posted July 9, 2015 Share Posted July 9, 2015 I think it's the robotic quality of the motion (or lack of motion) - exactly how most cgi misses the point since it's often created by people who have little to no experience with physics and the laws of physics. the lack of limitation within a digital world means the people responsible for having to produce realistic cg means incorrect levels of physical constraint are included in the brief.IS is a new thing - in film terms (regarding miniature mechanical IS- in lens, moving sensor etc) . the fact that it's not within an Arri 435, an IMAX camera, Mitchell cameras, Panavision Panaflex's, AATONS, Alexa, F65, Red Epic. or in any of the flagship film making lenses used in Hollywood from day one. From day one (lets say 60 years ago) the lack of IS (as it is currently implemented in consumer cameras and lenses) has meant film makers have not had it imparting its look onto the picture. Since we're way past the golden age of cinema - it is going down hill on the whole. The golden era of hollywood started and died pretty much in unison with when John McTiernan started and stopped making films. There are some film makers still doing it right, Nolan, Tarrantino, etc but the new kids are coming and making films without doing their homework or paying their dues to the glory days. Who knows, if commercial cinema continues the way it's going IS will be commonplace in 50 years. But I know when I'm sat in my deathbed and kids are wondering why films like the Hateful Eight look so much better than the shite we'll be seeing in 50 years only a few remaining humans will know about what kept us in the real world. Physical objects, with weight and value. I know I'm mad and old fashioned in my views. But I'm pretty sure Tarrantino would agree if he had the time and desire to talk on forums:) from across the pond in Los Angeles..we echo you sentiments exactly... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Oliver Daniel Posted July 9, 2015 Share Posted July 9, 2015 The RX10 II seems excellent for low budget music videos. I might just pick one up and see what happens. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Ebrahim Saadawi Posted July 10, 2015 Share Posted July 10, 2015 The RX10 II seems excellent for low budget music videos. I might just pick one up and see what happens. Seriously thinking about it too. The images seem lovely, even from the original RX10, even better aesthetically than the GH4. Sharp yet organic and the colour science look great (Even though it's a Sony!). The lens covers everything from wide to actor close ups to teles, with quite a shallow DOF. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheRenaissanceMan Posted July 10, 2015 Share Posted July 10, 2015 Seriously thinking about it too. The images seem lovely, even from the original RX10, even better aesthetically than the GH4. Sharp yet organic and the colour science look great (Even though it's a Sony!). The lens covers everything from wide to actor close ups to teles, with quite a shallow DOF. Indeed! I really love my RX10. It goes anywhere, does anything, and the addition of XAVC-S fixed its only major flaw. If anyone wants to see any tests from the camera, let me know. I have yet to seriously put it through its paces. Weddings are slow this year. :/ Santiago de la Rosa 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sudopera Posted July 10, 2015 Share Posted July 10, 2015 The only problem is that there is quite substantial amount of noise as you can see in PB's footage especially if you put a lut on it. I denoised the footage first than used FilmConvert A7s Slog2 profile and it looks very nice to me with a little tweaking. I guess the noise is there because of the small sensor and lifted base iso for Slog2, but it's not a deal breaker for that kind of a camera. Dynamic range seems quite good.I know the footage is from RX100IV but as I understood the sensor is the same as in RX10II. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.