Axel

Use this: https://www.proxfree.com/
Just put in the YT URL and pick a Netherlands server in the drop down below.
Best,
Your fellow GEMA-Hasser

So yep... I've been shooting with the A7SII pretty extensively on a bunch of music videos. 
This particular video is narrative-only, shot in Whitby UK within 6 hours with a crew of 5 people including make up artist. 
My duties? I wrote the idea, shot, lit, graded and edited the video in FCPX. 
Most of the video was shot in natural light. One night scene was lit with Lupolux Dual LEDs and Scorpion Lights, powered by batteries (lifesaver!). The sun was going down quick and we used the A7SII up until ISO 12,800. 
Picture profiles were custom Slog2 profile and also custom Cine2, shot in 4k 25fps. 
We used the Sony CLM-FHD monitor on the camera (very useful). Would never used the camera without a monitor again unless desperate. Camera remains light and easy to use. 
Gimbal shots were on the Ronin-M, with the full IBIS activated with the Sony Vario-Tessar 24-70mm - operated in upright mode. Fantastic combination. 
Handheld lenses were Sigma 18-35mm (used at 35mm), Samyang 14mm and Helios 44-2 85mm (bloody well hard lens to focus!). 
This video wouldn't of been possible to shoot in 6 hours without the A7SII. The aesthetic helped the video with it's murky look, and the portability with IBIS was awesome. Helped keep us on our toes and be creative with the shots. 
Issues? I went through 9 batteries and er, the zip on my coat broke and er... I got a wet ass?... that's about it. 
I'll let you guys decide what you think the story is about and all that jazz. 
Hope you enjoy it!!
 

O.K., but 10-bit and 4:2:2 together are already seven league boots compared to ... (you know)

Saw this posted on Sonyalpharumors.. newsshooter.com's video with the A7SII and the new 24-70 2.8 & 85 1.4 G-Master lenses.  Sorry if this is a bit off-topic since it's shot on the A7SII and not the A7RII, but I thought the color might be of interest.
 

"A7r ii nothing but headaches".  Hasn't been for me.  I'm sure I am clearly in the minority here not hopping on the anti-Sony bandwagon, but having owned the a7r / a7s I find the colors of the a7r mark ii noticeably improved over the first series a7's.  Are they as pleasing as the 1dc or the 5d3 raw?  Of course not - just different.  I don't shoot Slog-2 often and leave the picture profiles completely off, and I make sure I manually set my WB first every time.  I'm loving this little camera, and in s35 mode + the Metabones speedbooster I'm getting great footage with it and my Canon glass.  I shot the 85 1.2 II handheld the other day and was amazed by how steady the shot was.
Shrug.  There is no perfect camera yet.  I think the UHD downscaled to 1080p from the a7r2 looks stunning, and I shoot people and landscapes mostly.

This simple, elegant workflow makes this small and lightweight camera the ideal companion wherever you go.
 

This is the settings I used for the Slog. Played with it some more and got the skin just right.
But still to much work imo. Better to just shoot Cine.
From this thread.
http://www.dvxuser.com/V6/showthread.php?326049-A7S-PicPro-Settings
Black Level: 0
Gamma Slog: 2
Black Gamma > Range: Middle , Level: -3
Knee > Mode: Auto , Auto Set > Max Point: 95 , Sensitivity: Mid
Colore Mode: Pro
Saturation: +8
Color Phase -2
Color Depth > R+1, G-1, B+2,, C-2, M-1, Y-3
Detail > Level, -5 Adjust > Mode; Manual, V/H Balance: -2, B/W Balance Type3, Limit: 0, Crispening:0, hi_light Detail: 0

White balance > Manual > Grid setting B 1 (one to the left)

3000-3600 = Tungsten
5000 - 5600 = Daylight
6100 - 7000 = late day or shade/shaded interiors in daylight
 

Or use a [Insert Camera Brand].
Just kidding

Thank's Oliver. You are right, and I think everybody made his point. I just wanted to say to richg101, that I too liked his misty-morning-clip and that I didn't mean to sound like an asshole.

I like the look of your original Olivia piece. The aesthetic works - doesn't matter if it doesn't technically work for us video nuts on this forum. 
I particulary like your "Bokeh Bonanza" video with shots of the dog with all those crazy apertures. Although it's just shots of a dogs face with some emotional music over the top, demonstrating a lens, the degraded visuals are really a pleasure to watch. 
I understand most people's negative stance on Sony colour, as I believe it too. But it doesn't stop me using a Sony camera. They capture great images that make me money, and nobody complains at all about the image. 
Although I've said it countless times, the white balance on these cameras is inaccurate/faulty. I've done various tests now and it's definitely wrong on the A7SII. This greatly affects the colour and is hard to fix in post. When the white balance reading is close however, colour isn't much of an issue. 

I am a bit of an Ed David fan, so I feel humbled that he engaged with my comment. I hate throwing opinions into the interweb wasteland, but I will speak up more often then.
I remember the first independent movies I saw as a young adult - Flirting with Disaster, Pixote, City of Lost Children, everything by Jim Jarmusch (thanks to the Earwax Cafe video rental store in Wicker Park, CH - is it still around, anyone?), and so on...
What struck me about these films is that it was hard to settle into the rhythm, but the rewards were amazing. Sometimes you actually feel smarter about a subject or subculture. Sometimes you just laughed your ass off or got pissed off, or both (The Big Short).  To me that is when I consider a film very good.
With other current 'masterpieces' like, lets say, Carol, I think we are expected to feel challenged and eventually rewarded, but I vehemently deny having any emotional journey. Visual perfection is not the same as visual joyride.
On the other hand, I had an emotional journey with Blue is the Warmest Colour. I was challenged by the pacing, voyeurish icky-feelings: but I committed to it and was rewarded immensely. Same subject matter as Carol, but different time period, style, story etc... but what a film.

All of the current conversation regarding Sony colour science seems almost right to me. 
Having been a Sony user for years, I find the colours from their cameras (in a pleasing, accurate way) to be inferior to Canon, Nikon and Blackmagic. 
Autumn Leaves is a good baked in look, however it's vastly limited by any grading, dynamic range and highlight roll off is steep. Might work for some, not for me. 
I've had some pleasing results from Slog2 custom profiles, however the result is always sort of pastel looking. For some stuff, this works great! (attached still from recent shoot, shot on A7S II + Sigma 18-35.) I guess it depends what you're shooting.
I find the Sony's are great for dark, edgy, gritty, surreal stuff like rock music videos. But for glamour, beauty, fashion, interviews, bright colourful work... there are better options. 

I expect there are lots of finished pieces shot on Sony Alpha series where colour is to your liking, but not everyone lists the camera they used in the description.  And usually the best work never has the camera listed because it's the last thing they think to include.  I think if I ever find myself in a position where I have the time to shoot material for myself rather than to show a specific lens character (for business purposes) I'd also not include the camera used - as a result the views obtained will be for the quality of the work rather than for consumers and forum users to use for reference before making a purchase.  It so happens that if i list the camera in my descriptions it brings more hits from those looking for samples of a camera, and sells more lenses to those not aware how much impact the lens has on the image.
 
 I keep putting this up as an example.  But to me I see ZERO problems with colour here.  We have proper light, good, clear and healthy skin, and a naturally pleasing lens for skintones.  If i gave this footage to any colourist worth talking to they'd have no complaints about the image.  This sample footage is exactly why so many colourists and post experts seem to be interested in the dso lenses.  if it chimes well with real colourists then it's good enough for forum chumps like us.
 
Anyway, I'd like to see some of the so called bad footage from the thread starter before I make any more comments.  Let's see the image he got from the a7rii and the image he gets from the d750.  I know for a fact that the flaws he left the camera because of were user error and nothing to do with the camera.
 

I agree with Don Kotloss and at the same time with you. One can indeed change the 'color science' in detail, but obviously that can only be done by a somewhat scientific approach with color charts, scopes and what have you - and still implies personal taste. If you happen to know of anyone who made a decent custom profile, please link to it. What I found so far makes the colors only worse. I am particularly pissed if people tell me why, I like the colors as they are (like my friend does, who actually owns all 'my' cameras now).
You don't have to use a creative style like Autumn Leaves (good compromise, at least for A7s), you can also find the right colors with SLog2 + 3, with Luts and grading skills, see this:
Now you may think, what are these idiots talking about? This is perfectly fine video. Where are the allegedly bad skintones, where are the RS artifacts or poor cadence?
The guy has managed to work around these things. And given all the effort put into this grading (who said raw was a hassle?), the skin tones, though looking appropriate at first glance, aren't good at all. There are very few nuances captured here. All people have the same SD-like color. User cantsin has pointed this out, comparing this clip with another one from the same filmmaker, but shot wit BMPCC.
 

I understand people have preferences but there are some things that should be stated correctly. 
1. HD FF resolution is better on the A7rII than the D750

2. Rolling shutter is also faster on the A7rII with FF HD than the D750.
A7rII HD ~ 13ms
D750 HD ~ 20ms (similar to the 5DMIII as shown here)
3. As others have mentioned, while motion cadence can be influenced by the codec and the camera most of the cases it is other things such as shutter angle that cause problems. Personally I have not experienced the issues that you mentioned and in a comparisson here with the A7s and GH4 I cannot see a difference:
 4. Color science just  means correct white balance + some custom color profile. I am going to agree with the point that some cameras such as D750 or the Canons have better color out of the box. But that is very different from saying the Sony cannot produce nice colors. Anyone that is serious about video should calibrate the camera colors to their preferences (Sony allows you to)  and do a proper white balance before each shot. For example using S-log3/S-gammut for everything with some random LUTs and AWB, will most definitely lead to bad colors. 
Again it is fine not to like a camera but we should separate personal preferences from the usefulness of the camera. At the end, cameras are just tools and we should find ways to make the best out of them. 
 

The a7rii doesnt have bad colour science.  it's just different to canon and nikon, which are different to red which is different to arri, black magic, etc.  subjective.  There is nothing that careful rgb curves can't sort out.  If specific colour is important it's probably best to learn how to set and use white balance bias, tweek profiles, and learn rgb curves rather than discard a superb imaging machine with such potential for glass.  Glass is way more important than the camera. - being able to select from any type of lens is worth the effort of learning how to get the required results from a camera in my book.
'awful' motion is subjective but assuming you are getting unsatisfying motion and rolling shutter you're probably not rigging the camera properly.  fitting a cage to add weight to the camera and learning how to shoot with it to avoid micro wobble is a very good way to remove rolling shutter - as is the ibis.  
perfect example of a piece of work by someone who got to grips with how to get the most from the a7rii.  lots of hand held stuff..  no motion issues.  lots of colours, no colour issues.
 
 

I have the D3300, body only threehundredsomething. Awful, almost no way to control video parameters. But quite nice colors. Don't know about motion. Because, as I confessed, I have no eye for that. Had been a projectionist too long and find 12fps more pleasing than 48 ....

I just sold my A7rii today. After having it for a few months I had nothing but huge headaches. I did many test with a 4k video devices recorder. Besides the worst rolling shutter I've ever seen no one seems to be talking about the horrible judder when panning. At first I thought it was just I'm shooting in 24p and viewing on a computer monitor at 60hrz. But further test in every setting, shutter speed and frame rate seem to have far more than every other camera I've shot with. Another problem is in 60p and 24p 1080 the noise level is bad. I also kept getting bad moire and aliasing in full frame 4k and 1080p especially in the highlights.
Granted as a small compact photo camera it's frickin pretty awesome. But for video the image only looks good in crop mode 4k and as soon as it moves or things in it moves it falls apart. I barely took it on a shoot because of how much testing I had to figure out before I felt comfortable with all its down sides. And is not worth it.
I went back to my Nikon D750 with a external recorder for now until I decided what to get next, but even though the 1080p image is softer everything else is far better. Rolling shutter very little. Noise level very clean upto 6400. Slow motion just as good as the 24p and very smooth. Color science far better. Dynamic range little less. Post with it is super easy. It's a shame this camera has gotten no attention, but it such a reliable camera its what we wanted out of the 5D Mk iii but quickly forgot about with all the 4k cameras that just keep adding more new problems, headaches, time and money all for the sake to say its 4k.

You are right, of course.
This was meant as a joke, but not entirely. If it fits the style, it could be cinéma vérité. Like in the said Victoria. But I agree with independant and others, the best camera is the camera that fits the intendet style. And realism? Reality? I couldn't care less.

Cameras do matter. Deakins fought for the alexa on hail ceasar and the cohens insisted kodak film. Have you seen hail caesar? It looks amazing. The camera is as important as the lighting lenses color etc. A lot of top dps say the camera doesnt matter but of course it does or they would not be risking it all to shoot on film when digital is so much safer for a production.  How it renders motion and  sharpness and smoothness. The camera is really important. Everything is important.
And yes deakins could say he would shoot on an iphone because that's baller to say.  But how many top DPs have "slummed" it on shoots with less-than-good cameras for major feature work?  Pretty much no one except Rodrigo Prieto who likes the Sony F55 for night exteriors.  Pretty much every other DP I can think of only shoots Alexa or Red.

I agree with everything stated above. Let me just elaborate on an aspect apparent in any Micro/Pocket-clip and particularly in the Training Day clip: sensor size vs. focus vs. aspect ratio. I think the cinematographer did a good job, considering it was handheld and focussed manually, but ...
For 16x9 (or 17:9, cinema widescreen), S35 (or APS-C, let's not split hairs here) seems (to me) to be the ideal sensor size. Yes, I know, a lot of factors contribute to sDoF, bokeh (aperture with or without the need to compensate for light conditions, pixel size with circle of confusion, sensor dimensions), but generally S16 is an unfortunate choice. Like full frame in the other extreme. Full frame is best for 3:2 photography. When I look at my old Praktika 6x6 stills, how creamy everything flows into focus (but still is soft, you need good resolution for that), it looks threedimensional instantly, very sweet. For scope, however, there is little good in anything else but absolute DoF (exceptions prove the rule). Framing has to do with how the motif is accentuated and therefore it influences focussing.
I totally dislike the artificial look of Sony cameras. Even without prominent artifacts or something I could nail down, the image looks processed. The Micro would have been the answer to everything, had it only a bigger sensor.
 

I agree with everything stated above. Let me just elaborate on an aspect apparent in any Micro/Pocket-clip and particularly in the Training Day clip: sensor size vs. focus vs. aspect ratio. I think the cinematographer did a good job, considering it was handheld and focussed manually, but ...
For 16x9 (or 17:9, cinema widescreen), S35 (or APS-C, let's not split hairs here) seems (to me) to be the ideal sensor size. Yes, I know, a lot of factors contribute to sDoF, bokeh (aperture with or without the need to compensate for light conditions, pixel size with circle of confusion, sensor dimensions), but generally S16 is an unfortunate choice. Like full frame in the other extreme. Full frame is best for 3:2 photography. When I look at my old Praktika 6x6 stills, how creamy everything flows into focus (but still is soft, you need good resolution for that), it looks threedimensional instantly, very sweet. For scope, however, there is little good in anything else but absolute DoF (exceptions prove the rule). Framing has to do with how the motif is accentuated and therefore it influences focussing.
I totally dislike the artificial look of Sony cameras. Even without prominent artifacts or something I could nail down, the image looks processed. The Micro would have been the answer to everything, had it only a bigger sensor.
 

During the summer draught I stand on the bridge and bite my nails. Hoping nobody notices the bags in the shallow water of the Rhine containing those who disliked my favorite movies.

Both too small. You just don't know how many have no cinematic taste.

During the summer draught I stand on the bridge and bite my nails. Hoping nobody notices the bags in the shallow water of the Rhine containing those who disliked my favorite movies.