Axel

Axel with LOG footage the grade has much more impact on colour than the camera does.
Most grades are weird looking and prioritise dynamic range. It takes real artistic skill to do a good one.
So judge the grade not the camera.
The skin bug is interesting... does it only affect HDMI?

UPDATE:
Excuse me while I remove my foot from my mouth. 
I just tested this again with an A7S that ships with a different firmware than the one I originally saw the problem on. And it doesn't do it anymore. It appears that firmware v.1.10 no longer has the waxy skin bug. This is incredible news and something I really wish Sony would have just said something about instead of denying that they even knew about a problem. If all I had to do was update the firmware, I wouldn't be here. 
Going to see if there's an update to the A5100 as well and report back soon. Just wanted to share this info as soon as I became aware of it.

So, this came up in another thread I was just in, and I see it mentioned here and there on the forum, but I think it deserves its own topic so I'm starting one.
I recently became very interested in recording externally to an Atomos or similar from my Sony bodies in an attempt to break the 30min limit. Seemed like a no brainer, especially with the current ridiculous falling price of Ninja units. But before I jump in, I wanted to read up on the workflow so I'd know what to prepare for. Until now, I was unaware of what the Skin Smoothing setting in the camera did (honestly, what self respecting photog or videog would have that enabled in the first place anyway), but now I'm suddenly VERY aware of it. 

Apparently (and I'm just going by what I see online in my research), there is some sort of bug in the firmware of many of the BIONZ X based cameras, that turns this blasted smoothing feature on when recording video even if you disabled it in the menu. If you aren't aware of this bug, this guy's video pretty much nails it in demonstration:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E6GVm1Ke2dQ
Since I didn't hear many people being scared off by this, I figured you can't go by one guy on the internet's opinion of a perceived problem. 
But then I found it again mentioned in Phillip Bloom's blog regarding using the A7S with a Shogun here:
http://philipbloom.net/blog/dad/ (about half way down the page)

And here it is again by Dave Dugdale:
http://www.learningvideo.com/atomos-shogun-review/ (third paragraph)

Then some guy in a forum shared this video to demonstrate how well the atomos was working with his A5100:
https://youtu.be/-DmrpLji6gk
He apparently wasn't even aware of the waxy skin thing going on with her face, but I see it right away now that i'm aware of it!

It seems that this issue is a legit one. While I've read that a firmware update to the RX series has solved it on that camera, the rest of us trying to record off our A6000, A5100, A7S, etc have this blasted thing show up whenever a face can be recognized. The "solution" has been to turn off face recognition and press record in camera. Without recording in camera, the hdmi out defaults to smoothing on again. I'm wondering, how many people do this and just haven't noticed it happens? Now that I've seen it and will be looking for it, I'm afraid it will drive me bonkers. OR do people just hit record in the camera to disable it?

My real question is, what about those of us who want to do this simply because we want to record longer durations than the internal recording allows? What happens when my A7S reaches 30 min and stops recording internally? Does everyone's face suddenly go all waxy? And what about trying to use external recording to prevent overheating on the smaller A5100? Hitting record on the camera isn't an option because it will build up heat too fast to even make it to 30 minutes most of the time. Is there another solution I'm not aware of? 

True story: new A7S user says: "I don't need to get any lighting gear now I have the A7S"...
The world's best cinematographers will make a much better film with a smartphone than the average joe would with a Red Dragon and Cooke primes. Now with the accessible price of the URSA Mini, there will be volumes of negative comments blaming the camera for poorer than expected quality. 

Haha yea... After the long holy grail search for the cinematic look, we are finally reaching the moment people will go "ahh, it was good lighting all along".

Hey Guys!
I wanted to show you a short film I shot on the Sony A6000. A great video camera on a budget in my opinion
It is my first short film, and it was all shot and edited in one day, I didnt have more time.
Lenses I used were the Tamron 17-50mm 2.8, Helios 44-2 and a cctv 35mm 1.7
Hope you Guys enjoy it ! Please let me know what you think about it  
I shot it for the Sony professional competition, so if you enjoy it, please like it on youtube. thanks !!
 
Cheers from Germany
Micha
 

Ecstasy is about intensity. There should be no strange visuals or sounds, but everything should look like from a happy ad. It also depends on the circumstances. If you are going to a club, you will be deeply immersed in the music and move under the impression that your body can do everything. You will be constantly smiling. 
If you are sitting alone at home, in subdued light, with headphones on and listening to any kind of music, you will hear every note like for the first time, as if it was written exclusively for you. 
The best way to show the effect is the behavior of the guy who took it. In a group of sober people he will appear irritatingly, inappropriately (well, this is relative, isn't it?) and sometimes annoyingly happy. Many who have made own experiences will know what's going on, most will see his ecstasy as the manic side of a bipolar disorder.

I wrote about it before, but only recently I had the chance to play with it at a friend's PC who uses Adobe CC. And I agree, for most of us this tool will be completely sufficient. Great advantages: ease of use, good integration because Lumetri has it's own workspace. You can and need to stack instances of the 'effect' (like nodes in Resolve). May I remark that I see this development as an 'answer' to FCP X's much-derided rudimentary CC-tools, which nonetheless let you do 90% of what needs to be done. Or, to put it differently, 95% of all people never use more.
What's missing most? A reference frame, a spltscreen view (unless I missed this on my two-hour-tour). I propose a workaround. Since usually you only need one reference frame per sequence, you can duplicate this completely graded clip, shove it on a track above the rest and crop it.

Have you guys been working with the Lumetri Color in Premiere Pro CC2?  I haven't heard much talk about it but I think it deserves some attention for people who may have missed the release notes.  Just found it myself, but it literally has changed my entire workflow overnight.
My old workflow used to be Levels, RGB Curves, and maybe either Filmconvert, Colorista II, or a LUT.  But....I find none of that necessary anymore with Lumetri Color.  
Everything corrects and grades so easily like you're editing a frame in Adobe Camera Raw.  Temperature, Tint, Exposure, Contrast, Highlights, Shadows, Whites, Blacks, Saturation....all the sliders are there.  And surprisingly, it seems to work very well with 8 bit frames.  It knows of S Log2, S Log 3, etc.  The rgb curves are incorporated into the filter.  It also has tools with Color Wheels, LUTs, Vignettes.
And it renders fast.  One more thing.  Not sure when it appeared but the Lumetri Scopes Window has a live histogram that I've always been wanting and needing.

Set your white balance properly.
And - seriously don't shoot Slog if you can't grade it. You're not forced to shoot it - you don't have to shoot it, it's a neat little extra feature the camera has.
So don't shoot it if you can't grade it. I just got back from a shoot which was quick turnaround (so no time to grade) - and I shot with Picture Profile off. The footage looks great - the colours are nice, skin tones are fine.
Experiment with what works for you and your project(s).
When the Alexa came out, people either got their footage graded, or they shot REC709. There were plenty of TV shows at the start shooting REC709 in order for an easier and quicker post/grade process when they first switched to the Alexa.

I often admitted that I can't grade. That's true, though I technically understand everything Huczek did in his tut and think I could have done even better. I agree that the key is not as good as it could have been.
BUT: The difficulties start when you don't grade a single, isolated shot so that it looks much better than before, but a whole sequence, in which almost every shot presents different problems. Yeah, Resolve has this very easy-to-use wipe-splitscreen for saved grades. Now the way to make the sequence look "consistent" (term by Stu Maschwitz) is to grade your favorite shot from the sequence first, for look. Then you compare the rest of the shots one by one with the splitscreen. Not just with the naked eye, you watch the RGB parade, which also shows the split and indicates if the balance matches.
So far the theory, and by following this advice, a half-blind will get 90% of the task accomplished. The remaining 10% separate the boys from the men. Because then you balance without net, and you will just need "an eye" for it, much like a good cook needs "taste" not to spoil everything but instead make it special, sensational ...
Two more aspects to consider: the whole philosophy of skin tones which need to be preserved because they are "memory colors" (Maschwitz again) is arguably wrong, the vectorscopes' skintone-line just a crook. If the skin color is perfect "porange" (Maschwitz) doesn't mean that it's looking alive and beautiful.
Because that - second objection - has more to do with the richness of nuances, with the number of different shades and colors the skin is composed of while it was stored in the recording file. Who says that colors are more believable if they are "pure"? There is a reason why the classic painters didn't just smear some porange on their portrait sketches. They applied different shades in layers, they let shadows wash away the saturation, they let the skin reflect the light or nearby objects. You could say they did a lot of grading. 
To get beautiful and not just acceptable skin, you need the right light/exposure, the right WB, the right color science of your camera's profile. The best options offer 10-bit or raw. And you need that extra bit of delicate taste for colors that will never be taught in a tut.
EDIT: On the Larry Jordan tut. This is not grading, it's saving a shot with a terrible cast through color correction. We don't see the girl full screen, but we will all agree ("everybody knows the color of human skin") that the color balance looks natural. It is an SD-approach actually. In SD it was enough when the outlines were filled with the right color. For true HD, let alone UHD, this doesn't suffice anymore. We are able to see so many details that the chroma values can't just represent skin. It's like a jump from a children's coloring book to a Vermeer. 

I often admitted that I can't grade. That's true, though I technically understand everything Huczek did in his tut and think I could have done even better. I agree that the key is not as good as it could have been.
BUT: The difficulties start when you don't grade a single, isolated shot so that it looks much better than before, but a whole sequence, in which almost every shot presents different problems. Yeah, Resolve has this very easy-to-use wipe-splitscreen for saved grades. Now the way to make the sequence look "consistent" (term by Stu Maschwitz) is to grade your favorite shot from the sequence first, for look. Then you compare the rest of the shots one by one with the splitscreen. Not just with the naked eye, you watch the RGB parade, which also shows the split and indicates if the balance matches.
So far the theory, and by following this advice, a half-blind will get 90% of the task accomplished. The remaining 10% separate the boys from the men. Because then you balance without net, and you will just need "an eye" for it, much like a good cook needs "taste" not to spoil everything but instead make it special, sensational ...
Two more aspects to consider: the whole philosophy of skin tones which need to be preserved because they are "memory colors" (Maschwitz again) is arguably wrong, the vectorscopes' skintone-line just a crook. If the skin color is perfect "porange" (Maschwitz) doesn't mean that it's looking alive and beautiful.
Because that - second objection - has more to do with the richness of nuances, with the number of different shades and colors the skin is composed of while it was stored in the recording file. Who says that colors are more believable if they are "pure"? There is a reason why the classic painters didn't just smear some porange on their portrait sketches. They applied different shades in layers, they let shadows wash away the saturation, they let the skin reflect the light or nearby objects. You could say they did a lot of grading. 
To get beautiful and not just acceptable skin, you need the right light/exposure, the right WB, the right color science of your camera's profile. The best options offer 10-bit or raw. And you need that extra bit of delicate taste for colors that will never be taught in a tut.
EDIT: On the Larry Jordan tut. This is not grading, it's saving a shot with a terrible cast through color correction. We don't see the girl full screen, but we will all agree ("everybody knows the color of human skin") that the color balance looks natural. It is an SD-approach actually. In SD it was enough when the outlines were filled with the right color. For true HD, let alone UHD, this doesn't suffice anymore. We are able to see so many details that the chroma values can't just represent skin. It's like a jump from a children's coloring book to a Vermeer. 

Funny, I am trying to get the answer for the exact same question.
First of all, resolution. The A7s' resolution is fine. I can further improve it with the Shogun, but as I wrote, the resolution should suffice.
Then the colors and gradability. The colors are few (8-bit). In theory, the A7s can depict almost 15 stops, more than even the 4,6 Ursa Mini. But only at the native ISO of 3200 (that's why this is the default ISO for S-Log). 
S-Log fits to landscapes, but imo not for skintones (too few to make them look alive). So until further experiences, I stick to autumn leaves then, shoot only at ISO 3200, use only WB 3200, 5600 and 6500. I need to buy fixed ND filters, because with such high ISO, ND faders all destroy the colors.
I'm not finished with my evaluation, these are my initial findings. I hope I can get close to this look ...

Footage looks great and both Ursa minis sound as very promising cameras that will establish BM. But I am sure it takes more than the camera to come up with a footage like that. I wonder if you could deliver something like that with a A7s and how much more effort it would take.
Here is some further info from the people that shot the two wedding clips: 
http://nofilmschool.com/2015/09/everything-you-wanted-know-about-working-blackmagic-ursa-mini

It also simply looks like - good color science of the manufacturer. (low, low english:)
Here 1 year old beta-footage of the Ursa:
 
I love what I see, from this Cameras.
 

I can understand that. For anyone, who is used to *shoot video* with a classic camcorder, it's terribly unpractical. The same was true, back then, for shooting with a bulky 35mm adapter or later with a DSLR. But as the bible knows, you love the prodigal son the most.
 
Imho it can best be compared to ancient mechanical 16mm cameras, with which people also had their trouble. To achieve good results, you had to know them by heart, to a point, where knowledge about stock sensitivity (and characteristics) in correlation with aperture and the (mostly fixed) shutter angle turned into intuition.
 
 
I don't use a light meter, and according to some comments in other places, only few still do, even in professional cinema. You can learn to judge correct exposure with the Pocket by doing a lot of tests and comparing them to what you saw during recording. Here are my rules of thumb:
 
1. ISO 800 offers the best possible DR for ProRes. To have a fixed ISO also facilitates things, less factors to be calculated on the fly by your CNS.
2. ETTR is also - partly - valid for ProRes. Fill the well, avoid the noise floor. It's 10-bit, so you are not simplifying skin tones by slightly overexposing, like with 8-bit codecs. Use 95% zebra then.
3. For RAW, use 100% zebra. If the image appears too bright on the display, lower the ISO (has no influence in RAW). 
4. When I still had a MFT system lens that set exposure automatically when I pressed IRIS, I realized that I always was in the same ballpark manually. No wonder: The automation uses ETTR as well.
 
My suggestion regarding your trip to far east:
 
1. Make at least ten test shots every day, document them, evaluate them, you will improve your intuitive skills. 
2. Buy a used GH2 or G6 (ridiculously easy cameras compared to the Pocket). They can use the same lenses. Compare, as I did, these cameras in the same situations. At first, the results with these Lumixs will be three times better. But not for long. 
3. Learn when to use RAW (seldom) and when ProRes (almost always).
4. Learn how to use Speedgrade. Not just in an afternoon. Watch whole video trainings by Lynda or the like, and delve into CC.
 
As I wrote before: The Zacuto Pocket finder (quite affordable) makes you see every single pixel on the muddy display and helps only a little bit as far as focussing is concerned. But you need it anyway when you shoot in daylight. And it adds a comfortable stabilization point. What you also need is some kind of additional support. Mine weighs below 100g and cost 14 € (new!).

You are right. I wrote 'tasteful teal/cyan' (it should have read orange/teal of course) because it isn't Transformers. I think most of the enthusiastic reactions to the clip come from the two things a subtle o/t grading does:
1. the image looks balanced, harmonic.
2. the image looks clear because it's the highest hue contrast combined with luma contrast possible without looking outright wrong.
But even if a lut can do wonders, my own experience with ProRes of the Pocket tells me that you always need to apply corrections, if only for gamma. Our Mr Wedding may be a laughing stock and make embarrassingly cheesy videos, but he must be brashly clever, if he did nothing but produced such nice images.
So maybe everybody else makes too big a fuss about grading, log, finding the right profiles, ask for the right workflows. All you need is the right lut ...
 
 

I did a lot of weddings. You may detest them, but you hardly find better occasions to test your equipment and your skills - as well as videographer as as storyteller. A wedding is as good a proof of a camera's strengths and shortcomings as any image video or fictional short, imo.

I did a lot of weddings. You may detest them, but you hardly find better occasions to test your equipment and your skills - as well as videographer as as storyteller. A wedding is as good a proof of a camera's strengths and shortcomings as any image video or fictional short, imo.

I did a lot of weddings. You may detest them, but you hardly find better occasions to test your equipment and your skills - as well as videographer as as storyteller. A wedding is as good a proof of a camera's strengths and shortcomings as any image video or fictional short, imo.

Ever since the first "gamechanger" threads on handheld gimbals emerged, I remained sceptic. Particularly the effect of travelling to, away from or around inanimate objects (cars, trees) is something that wears off quickly, more so if done with ultra wide lenses. This is true for Glidecam/Flycam/Steadicam shots as well, as long as they don't serve a well-defined purpose. Similar with extreme sDoF that was en vogue for a few years. But wouldn't you agree that it's nice to have these opportunities in our tool box?
We also made some shots with a 70mm, and they were smooth too, something you'd hardly try with a Glidecam. Didn't try longer lenses so far. Very few nowadays explore what tele lenses have to offer. Of course these things shouldn't be misused to just show off. Watch this clip on 'Bayhem' from everyframeapainting:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2THVvshvq0Q
This is what we missed on the airfield yesterday: long lenses. As you can see, the best dynamic effect comes from cutting between wide shots and tele shots. And I don't rue to have bought the Ronin, because it offers some things you can't do with a Glidecam. But doubtlessly, two or three years from now, the construction of these devices will have improved to such a degree, that you need to change then. Maybe they become lighter, maybe 5 axis stabilization will be standard, who knows now?
 

Well, you mount the camera, balance it (quite easy, no tools needed), then you establish a bluetooth connection with your phone to tune it with the "DJI Assistant App"(doesn't work all the time, we had to restart the app / the Ronin a few times, no idea why). With that app, you initially just need one button called "Auto Tune Stability". Once hit, the Ronin makes loud servo noises like an ED209 or a T800 , the calibration stand shivers, and the camera turns upright. After a few seconds, it's useable.
But there are other parameters to tune. By default, the camera follows your movements, but way too late and too slowly. This is what these guys are for:

Probably you don't want any roll behavior with a gimbal, but you'd want the camera to follow your deliberate pans and tilts, you just want these movements smoother. So you have to play with those settings, until you are satisfied ("Deadband" = the higher the value, the more the Ronin ignores your movement). Took round about an hour, until we were satisfied.
This morning, we went to the glider airfield to test the thing in the field. The sun was so bright, we couldn't see shit on the tiny A7s' display. So we mounted the Shogun on top. We still couldn't see enough to really frame the images. What is more, the additional weight of the Shogun made holding the Ronin for more than, say, two minutes - impossible. And we both go to the gym on a regular basis and do quite a lot of shoulder and neck workout.
We also changed the lenses. One was considerably heavier than the first, but balancing it (of course you have to carry the calbration stand with you) was a matter of two minutes. It took another ten minutes for the phone to find the Ronin (this is kind of a PITA) to hit Auto Stability, but afterwards everything worked fine.
For the time being, having not much experience with the device, I dare to draw some first conclusions:
1. To believe that such a gimbal replaces tripod and shoulder mount would be naive fallacy.
2. It replaces a steadicam.
3. Even though this is a lightweight model and we had a small camera, you really don't carry this around all day. 
4. I am musing about video glasses. Any suggestions? Comments? Has anyone tried this?
 

Only yesterday we received the Ronin M. Works from the start. Only concern is that it feels heavier (with camera) than the demo videos suggest. Maybe one day we change ...

The title says it all. Can't comment on the app so far, must read the 341 page manual. I'm looking forward ...

Yes, the Wolfcrow E-Book is $80, and though it may gather all information the author knew about at the time he first published it, he has very headstrong opinions, which imo don't help to get the best out of your camera.
Me and my buddy are only testing the A7s since a month now or so. We have a lot of Canon glass, so we bought the Metabones adapter. Can't recommend it, because it turned out to be unreliable (aperture). We have a Sony Zeiss 16-35 and a Sigma 24-105 (imo the better one, 24mm is also wide enough), both E-mount of course. For faster primes, we are planning to buy some Rokinons, perhaps 50 + 85. 
As I wrote before, I'm no friend of superflat PPs with an 8-bit codec. Try autumn leaves, and you will get better skin tones than with any SLog+LUT-treatment. But that's my strong opinion.