Tone13

Does it look like 60p!?

I'm baffled by your ridiculous statement/ question, Andrew. Obviously you were trying to be a smart arse, you succeeded. You also succeeded at looking like a fool.
No it doesn't look like 60p but what's that got to do with anything?
Acquisition for some shots could have been 60p and conformed to a 30p timeline in the edit. You do know that you can do that don't you?
It's pretty common technique and help reduce rolling shutter in most cameras. Personally If I was testing the a7s and was disappointed by the rolling shutter at 24 or 30p I'd logically also test the 60p setting.
FFS!!!

Thanks for answering my question!

I've read the article three times now and can't find any mention of frame rates for the a7s. What frame rate was used on the a7s??????!!!!!!!

Was the 60p setting used at all and was there any improvement in rolling shutter.
Basic info guys!

It's like HDR photography, sucks big time. But some ppl love it. :D

HDR photography can look very natural and doesn't have to suck. It's just that people over do the effect.

Sarcasm on forums almost never works. Best to not bother.

Looks like the A7s will be the camera that replaces my GH3. I don't need 409,???ISO but to shoot with a camera with great dynamic range for me is far far far more important than 4k internally.

Superb footage Ed.

I've promoted this to a blog post on the front page of EOSHD.

Thanks for contributing.

*****

Maybe I missed it but was that video showing the rolling shutter shot at 60p, 30p or 24p? If 30 or 24p, does shooting at 60p greatly reduce the rolling shutter like it does in other cameras?

 

Im happy to shoot 60p (well, 50p in my country) and conform down to 25p in post.

 

Thanks

This camera looks fantastic for times that I want to shoot a girl walking into the sea at night with a candle :-P

Unfortunately, Sony has let us down before in regard to things like Jello, moire, fast motion and every day/real world shooting environments.

 

If this camera can do 15stops DR in video mode, It's definitely exciting, I'm just not getting any hopes up just yet......

@ Christina : shallow DOF is a creative choice, just as deep focus is one.  There is no better or worse.  Both are legitimate options and part of the job of a DOP is to make the right choice for every shot.

 

Following your logic, you might as well argue that shooting everything with deep focus is testament to a lazy DOP who can't make up his mind where he wants the scene to go.  So he lets everything open to the viewer's interpretation.   That would be ludicrous of course.  

 

Shallow or deep focus should always be an artistic choice depending on the scene and what you want to say.  Exactly the same way we use lighting, reflectors, focal length, choose between handheld/steadicam/crane/dolly/tripod, ...  It is one of our tools AND skills as DOP's.  

 

Super shallow DOF like that being produced with a 5D and a f1.4 lens is a stylistic choice. The problem is that people with the 5D start shooting everything at f1.4. They give it no thought. Most films you see only use a super shallow DOF when stylistically required. Usually DOF is quite large.

Put any of todays video shooting DLSR's in the hands of a talented professional and you will get the 'filmic' (I hate that word) look. In the hands of someone who doesnt know anything about lighting or grading you will get 'videoish' looking images. I have to disagree with Julian here, a few magic bullet film presets will not make your video look like film. Lighting is the key ingredient and working within you cameras boundaries. Then, grading plays a huge part.
 These days the video look is a trait of the operator/grader and lack of lighting knowledge rather than the camera. The cameras we have today are amazing. Never has the divide between the picture quality of $60,000 camera been so small compared to a $1600 one. Its just that now you have lots of people able to afford these cheaper cameras that don't know how to get the most out of them.

 

Amateurs that need an over sized sensor like that in the 5DIII to help give them what they think is filmic (shallow depth of field) just show how little they really know about film making. Kendy's film on the previous page is a prime example. Shot on a crop sensor, at no point did I think it needed shallower DOF or that it would have benefited from a larger sensor.

BMC as in Ursa. $ 6.5 K vs $ 9 k for a more fully featured camera, lighter and better designed camera. One will more likely sit on the shelf while someone somewhere thought they were saving 2.5k. It's like the Red Pro Primes. Some  thought is was a great deal at 20k until they realized nobody wanted to use them for legit reasons. As where your Cookes, more expensive, slower but lighter and by far better IQ hold their value and in most cases work a lot. 

 

Once you're spending 6G or more, you're thinking of these things as tools with a good ROI. Anyone who can put down 6.5k for an URSA will probably be considering where and how to get an extra 2.5k to avoid a possible flop. 

 

It's amazing that people scoff at a camera that costs $9K now days. My first professional camera was a Sony 637 with DVCAM back that I bought almost 20years ago. It cost me over $20,000 without lens. Look how far we have come now! To a professional, $9000 is nothing for a tool that will put a roof over your head and food on your families table. I agree that for a little extra, the AJa seems to be a much better proposition to the professional shooter.

Sorry, it wasn't supposed to be personal... I'm just going crazy with all the "form factor" talk when all people mean is "I want big things". :rolleyes:

Form factor is very important to those that use cameras all day, day in day out. You think cameras like Alexa, Amira, Sony XDCAM and HDCAM camcorders look the way they do just so they 'look' pro?

I would rather shoot a long form documentary on any of those cameras over the BMPocket. Even though they are much heavier, their 'form factor' or should I say 'professional looks' and ease of use when working solo are unrivaled by any Blackmagic or DSLR.

If you have never shot with one, thats fine but saying that these cameras are big just for looks is incorrect.

PS, the AJA cion looks great.

I can see where BM are coming from (kinda) but they now have a range of cameras from the Pocket and Cinema that have many usability problems like lack of tilting screen, poor audio, no audio meters, poor software, poor functionality and the requirement to use many add ons like EVF, power and audio recorders/boxes to work properly, to the the URSA that has 3(!) articulating screens, great audio monitoring, seemingly great funtionality etc but needs at least two people to operate etc. Two extremes and none of them really cater to 95% of BM potential customer base.

 

A 10inch flip out screen is ridiculous and this would have been a great April fools joke. Look at most cameras used on a film set and you will see that almost no operator uses a screen that big in that position. How do you go about shoulder mounting ursa, it has no viewfinder and I wouldn't want that 10inch monitor at the tip of my nose.

 

This camera has tried to address so many issues and created so many more. Well done BM for creating something modular and trying to address the usability of the cinema range but how about creating a camera somewhere between Ursa and the cinema range?

Well done Andrew,

 

Would love to see footage of the GH4 and SB Sigma 18-35 combo. Now that you know that you exposed too far to the right, with fixed exposure would be good.

Three questions all asking what handheld stabilizer is being used and not one answer?

You need to think about the situation you are in when using the YAGH. Your using the SDI outs and tethered to an external recorder/monitor. You're better off using a small rail system with shoulder pad if doing handheld so adding a battery to power both camera and external recorder is probably the best way of powering the whole rig.

If you are buying the YAGH just for the XLR inputs, there are better, more portable and powered options out there.

Not yet. The GH4 is still a clunky DSLR. If Panasonic decide to combine the two units together in a 'video' form factor camera, (perhaps at a price point slightly less then the two separate units) then you'll then have a real contender.

I think the GH4 is a contender in its current form. I do agree though that a Morph of the GH4 and the YAGH into one unit would be great however I would want Sony or Canon to carry out the morphing duties. I hate Panasonics video cameras. If it doesn't have a built in ND wheel though, it's not worth doing.

Anyone have an opinion on the best GH3 cage with a hdmi clamp? I'm concerned about that tiny micro hdmi connection.

Fughen (spelling?) make one specifically for the GH3 with HDMI lock.

Considering who it's aimed at, I hardly think that's a problem.

External batteries aren't exactly unusual on a Hollywood set with Epics.

Agreed, if you are using the GH4, YAGH and an external SDI recorder, you are more than likely using a small rig at the very least. Easy to mount an external battery to power all devises.

I'd like to see a third party manufacturer release a battery grip similar to the current Photo one that has a battery compartment and just the XLRs and preamps. That way it would be perfectly viable to shoot handheld without a rig and use XLR mics. Then they could include a multi pin port and have an external break out box or even recorder for all the SDIs for when you needed them. Patent Pending 2014 Tone13 :-P

Pretty obvious that the GH4 was going to output 4K 10bit 422 via its HDMI port. I don't know how else people were expecting the YAGH to get its video.

Best thing is that third party manufacturers should be able to come up with similar solutions.

There are some complaints about low light performance. Even BlackMagic says the BMPC is not for low light shooting, and that sensor is bigger than MFT. That's not to take away from their top notch well lit images.

I think we are all on here to see about moving on from "good" looking images to "great" looking images. Full frame has its advantages in low light, especially with a fast f1.4 lens.

Now, I believe this is enough clutter in this thread. Time to move on.

Yep, you've done a great job at contributing to it.

Funny, although it's hard to see anything at all... Just makes me wonder, why would a DoP mix Canon C500 with Alexa, why not choose one system?

Different cameras do different things well. Notice the GoPro shot in that trailer?

Content is king?

 

I don't know. I've seen many films that have made decent money that have been very lacking in the content department.

 

I like to use the builder building a house analogy. The end result may be an architectural masterpiece and the quality in workmanship may be exemplary but if the builder was using poor quality tools that made his life difficult and meant that the build took longer, wouldn't he want to upgrade his tools to make his life easier?

 

I'm sure that if content really was king and our tools were unimportant, studio accountants would have started to insist that films were shot on handycams long ago.

 

Both are important. Its a pointless argument

The chest beating and belittling are merely products of your own imagination. You also seem to be responding to a comment aimed at the use of the term capitalism, a comment that has nothing whatsoever to do with Andrew Reid. Apparently you either haven't even read the entire comments you are criticising, or you haven't quite understood them. But you are of course entitled to your opinion, and feel free to skip my comments if you don't like or understand them.

 

As for Mr. Reid needing your defending his "honour," don't worry. He has proven to be verbally talented and witty enough to give me a proper reply, or even block me, in case he actually felt somehow belittled by me. Which is unlikely. I also believe that he's both thick skinned and smart enough to see (unlike you, apparently) the actual point of my first comment. It wasn't really about him, it was about Nikon, and the over-inflated image and market inertia the brand still seem to be enjoying, for some reason. 

 

Many of us here are more or less frustrated with the fact that some cameras have one or two nice features for the filmmakers and video enthusiasts, but none of the camera makers are offering all the essential features inside the same enclosure, and for a reasonable price. Time and again Nikon have proven to be the least likely to offer that proverbial holy grail to us. The latest case in point, the D4s. 

 

As for using words like "professional features" in their marketing copy, oh please. From paper tissue to camera manufacturers, every mainstream company are using those buzzwords and then some. Nikon are no exception. Most of the likely buyers of the D4s are smart enough to take those buzzwords with a grain of salt. Being overly pedantic is not good for one's health.

 

My point, in case it's still unclear to someone, was to make the argument that being angry or frustrated with Nikon because of (missing) video features is energy wasted. You'll be banging your head against the brick wall for a good while longer.

 

All that energy could be used for something more constructive instead. Like concentrating more positive energy to those who deserve it, whilst ignoring those who don't. Concentrating on the ones who seem to be less phlegmatic and who at least make an attempt to deliver us the goodies we want, even if they're not quite there yet. Like Panasonic, Sony, Blackmagic, Digital Bolex and even Olympus.

 

Apparently the most effective way to get the message through to the Nikon board is to start ignoring them. Attention deprivation. If/when enough people started simply ignoring them, they would have to react eventually, or become obsolete within certain market segments. After all, we do have the choice, and so do they.

 

But I'm sure all this was quite obvious to most readers the first time around, so surely this is enough repeating the same talking points over and over again. By all means embrace, love and use your beloved Nikon for anything you wish, and just ignore my comments. I won't mind, nor will anyone else.

I was quoting you in general. Your tone rather than the references to capitalism itself.

 

If you don't think that Andrew should be complaining, don't read his posts. I don't feel the need to defend Andrew, but his argument is based on the fact that Nikon are touting this as a camera with video professionals in mind when this is far from the truth. He is right to have a go at Nikon for these claims and so would I. Either way, I don't care. Nikon can die as a manufacturer for all I care. My first two DSLR's where both Nikons and I loved them but they have failed to evolve and keep up. Now remember, I am talking as a stills AND video shooter which is what this site is about so take my views in that context.

M43 is a economic/technological compromise that makes many wonderful things possible, but Its not likely to be considered a real alternative to full frame professional still-cameras in quite a while. What me and I think many others want is a solid performer like the 5d or D800 that has an equally professional approach to video as the GH4 has. That camera is the future for journalists.

Not sure if you understand the intentions of this site but we are video shooters here. APC-C is considered full frame in cine terms and MFT is not too much of a compromise to APS-C.

I can't think if too many instances where I want my subjects eyes in focus and their nose completely out of focus. That's where full frame excels.

People have been making wonderful films with S16mm for years (smaller than MFT), 2/3" (Smaller than MFT) and not too many people are complaining about the capabilities of BlackMagics cameras (smaller than MFT). If you can only make good looking images with a stills FF sized sensor, you're doing something wrong.