jahwah

On 4/17/2018 at 2:36 PM, sam said:

Not sure I follow.   I own all these cams and tried to be fair to each  and all.   I also designed the test so anyone can replicate it themselves on the cheap. Take a 6ft. length of rope. Measure 2 marks on a wall 6ft wide. Fasten a weight, rock, etc.. to the rope and hang it from something like c stand or a ladder.  Set your camera to the same settings and dictance as described in the yt video.  (I would choose something large and round at the end of the rope so you can easily see whats happening).  Now let gravity do its thing.   

Sorry, I wasn't being clear, no criticism of you or your test was intended. I meant that you can see the effects of the rolling shutters pretty clearly in your test and at least for me, your results go beyond subjective judgements about motion cadence and into almost defect or definitely artifact territory. I think tests like yours are great, I'm just also (in combination with tests like yours) curious about tests that give the viewer the ability to judge more ambiguous qualities and see what they prefer.  I feel a lot of things like motion cadence are a mixture of actual effects (distortion, artifacts, etc.) combined with subjective judgements (taste, context, etc.). Carry on!

On 4/15/2018 at 2:25 PM, sam said:

I set up these cams (although more carefully aligned in the actual video) Details and settings are in the YT description.  

Thanks for the test, I really appreciate the time you took to do this.

I think it would also be helpful to see a scene with two actors walking, etc. with some decent lighting but keep the cameras anonymous (put the makes at the bottom of the YouTube description), I know it's not scientific, but I still think it helps keep your mind open while you judge the scene. Although in this case, it's pretty obvious that something is up. But who has time for that? 

I forgot to add "psychology of the viewer" to the list too. When these sorts of tests are done blind the results are often startling to the viewer. All of the camera fan/hater stuff goes out the window and people's minds open and change. Geoff Boyle has done some great tests this way on CML and very accomplished DPs often are surprised by what they like/dislike when they don't know what the tools are that were used to produce the image and have to judge the image alone without any of the tool allegiances/preferences we all carry around.

Doesn't the perception of motion cadence result from a combination of factors including compression, camera movement, contrast, lighting, shutter technology, shutter angle, foreground/background action and on and on. I remember the guy who made the digital Bolex felt that the global shutter allowed the camera to capture motion better than a camera with a rolling shutter. Here's a video that they made with a dancer who claims the digital Bolex is the only camera that replicates the way her movements look live (not sure what that means in relation to the idea of "cinematic motion cadence" but it's still an interesting idea):

 

On 3/18/2018 at 11:47 PM, Matthew Hartman said:

I'm trying to dig this camera but I just can't. To my eyes the image overall looks thin and people look plastic. The motion cadence looks video-ish too. I'm sure you could do a few tricks to make it look more filmic, but with some effort, which is kind of underwhelming for a camera in it's price range.

I feel like it's not a far cry from what you could get out of a modern mirrorless camera. Sorry if this offends anyone. It's just merely my opinion. If you like and use this cam, cheers. Happy filming. 

Do you think what you're seeing are artifacts from the compression (long GOP) that is in the 1.0  firmware? I'm curious to see some footage shot on the new All-I codec (and RAW). From what I understand long GOP is really best for delivery not capture (maybe that's wrong, but it makes sense). Still curious to see what effect this might have on the issues you highlighted.

1 hour ago, Henry Gentles said:

ok the color is better but i still don't like the sony image! Always looks fake, like a videocam image looks fake, I know it's 4K image etc but all sony cameras have this fake look about them? Don't know why other PPL don't see it? ps I used some of the best sony cameras almost every day for 2 years. 

On every post I read about a camera (not just Sony!), here or on other sites, there is a comment like this. I'm just not sure what you mean. Can you post a link to a digital video image that doesn't look fake to you and elaborate on what looks "fake" to you in this video? 

I agree with most of what's been said here... bad script, some shit acting, but the sound mix is really, really bad. Blade Runner and IT had really bad mixes. With IT, the mix actually stepped on some of the performances and I think really messed with some of the character building. In both movies, the mixes took me out of the movie which is just really bad film making. Are all the mixers going deaf? Are they not leaving enough production time for the mix? What's up?

Adding my voice to the don't quit chorus. More voices are always better, especially when they add to the discussion.

What's weird to me about all of these discussions about a technical issue is basically, who cares? I'm not trying to be flip about it, but ask yourselves, who cares? If it informs your choice of cameras and when to use them and how, then great, but other than that... the GH5 10 bit unusable? Hardly! I regularly see cases of aliasing and other more obvious problems on shows I dearly love that are very successful, but it doesn't matter. The writing, the directing, the acting, everything else (god even the cinematography in these shows the rest of the time) are fucking great! So I don't care, nor do the millions of other viewers who also love these shows. Focus on writing, focus on directing, focus on creative shots and impactful story based cinematography, focus on finding other creative people to collaborate with and make something that you give a shit about with whatever camera you can get!

Rant done, thanks.

Just seems like filmmaker anxiety about competing with VR. Not needed in my opinion. I connect with characters and stories, not the tech, especially if it makes me nauseous. Obviously if the projection or camera detracts, then that's a  problem, but what I think needs fixing are the scripts/ideas, not the frame rates.

Looks amazing! But that voice over is the worst. Kant???? Really? I do want to see the Viking music video though...

Just checked to make sure I wasn't crazy, but my a7s does not have this much play... it has NO play. Something is wrong with that camera.

I think if you don't get the lens and the name, or it upsets you or whatever, you're probably not in the target market. Move on. There are plenty of "serious" companies with inoffensive names that produce technically perfect lenses. The branding is perfect and I love my Dog Schidt!!!!!!

If you don't know what you're talking about, or you can't read, just don't comment, please, you waste everyone's time. Ugh. Sick of trolls and fanboys. 

Can someone explain to me the creative benefit of the low light performance of this camera?

 

I'm a bit curious, as all I can work out that it would benefit me would be if I wanted to film at night a well lit scene, but had no lights. Then I could just make it look well lit. Which is really awesome! But that's the only benefit I can work out at the moment...?

 

So a quick example of how this could benefit you creatively:

 

You're filming a scene without permits in a dimly lit gas station at night. You want your main actor to be filling the tank as he stares off in the distance. In the background you want the viewer to see his girlfriend in the car crying. You only have time to pull off one shot before the gas station attendant will come out and shut you down so you don't have time to mark focus points and do multiple takes, etc. With other cameras you would most likely have to open the lens so wide that you could only focus on one actor at a time, thus necessitating the multiple takes while trying to get the focus right. With the a7s, you could have everyone acting the scene then you could jump out of the car, get your exposure/focus set so it's sharp, roll the camera and be out of there before anyone can stop you (if you're lucky!).

 

There are many ways to make this camera's image look great too—Philip was just trying to show how far you could push the camera's iso, not impress anyone with a perfect grade. Check out Stu Maschwitz test video to see how you can use the S-Log2 profile with a ton of ND to get daylight shots with more dynamic range—again, it's a camera test video, he's not trying to impress you with a perfect video.

 

Cameras are tools, not cults or panaceas.

Shooting raw/2.5K is great for visual effects and motion graphics work which is increasingly a part of projects with small budgets. Huge advantages to being able to reframe, track, green screen, etc.