Danyyyel

Now before I let you guys discuss about the A7s color, I will give you my assessment that some of you might find useful. Because I did asses the camera as a contender as everyone was talking about that. This was before I find the colour skin tone issues, rolling shutter issues and blue clipping. My assesment is that the the colour are bias toward green and pink which make it look a lot as when you are shooting low cri fluorescent or led light. It is as if there are some colour spectrum lacking. The best resource I saw about analyzing the different colour profile and S-log is this, I think it is a good starting point The second thing I guess is that a 8 bit file is not sufficient to store enough step for that ultra low contrast 13 or more DR. So some of the rounding off is causing part of colour to merge. As a better explanation, I mean the contrary of colour separation that you normally want, so that if you want to do colour correction etc choosing a colour for qualifiers in Davinci it wont merge with nearby colours. The last thing as this example is that shooting at 3200 you will need very very good ND. Most of the time ND will bring a colour cast. In fact in general ND tend to bring some additional green hue and IR polluting a pinkish hue. So they will tend to reinforce the green and pink tint and that is a big task to get it out of a super flat 8 bit codec.

He has graded the video to the Orange and teal look, It is a question of tast if people like it or not. But even with the grade it looks a lot better than most Sony A7s video that I have seen (he has his website here http://gbvideo.com/wedding-videos where you can see a lot more example) and it is a wedding so guerrilla shooting in sometime harsh lighting. In that video looking at the vegetation I would say south of the USA and not shooting at ideal hours (golden hour) when the contrast is low, I am sure that any camera would blow, If applying a normal S-curve and to expose nicely for the face of the couple. If not you would have to use power windows in davinci reslove to isolate the blown area and us tracking to lower the highlight so that you don't affect the skin of the principal subject, which mean the couple. I don't know many production who would go that far for some blown highlight behind them. To continue on dynamic range, I leave and dye by it because I don't live in a Tropical island with mostly dark skin tone people. If you have someday the opportunity to go shoot in the Caribbean etc you will know what contrasty light mean. I also always joke anout the golden hour because it is more like the golden 20 minutes in my country because you come from full day to knight in the space of 20 minutes as the closest you come to the equator higher is the sun and the curve of entry and exit is much more vertical toward the horizon. When you shoot in those condition dynamic range is more important than resolution and ISO. Part of my job is to do weddings of couple mainly from Europe on the beach and I have to shoot human beings in very harsh light. This is a website a travel agency who sell my services packaged with their flight and hotel accommodation. This is just a very very small sample of my work and some errors in there (One photo with couple with sunset and a big fck ugly boat behind and they are just shinning and ugly red skin........ some over smoothing of the skin done buy the agency ) http://www.danielvilliers.com . But if you take the first one with the bright turquoise sea, you can just barely open your eyes in these condition and I have 3 Flash firing at them as fill light. During those time you can barely shoot continuously more than 1) minute or risk the bride or more rarely the groom to fell unconscious. Most of the time I have to correct the skin for shininess and redness and to people disbelief, most of the time it is the groom because... they don't wear makeup. So next time you lecture someone about dynamic range or any other subject, perhaps it would be good to know his background a bit. If you want I can send you links to load of my complete wedding gallery because I pride myself to a certain level of consistency in my work and in those harsh condition like the first photo. Just as a note most of those photos are done on jpeg because I have very little time of 3 to 5 days before departure of the client. My D800 RAW (best camera in DR) are only used when I have to rescue a shot.

I have downloaded Canon slog and Arri Log and could get very good image just by applying an S -curve. I am used to high dynamic range with my D800, just apply the curve you want to get the contrast level you want, but the colour response more or less the same depending on the colour preset of the camera. I would say the closest two I have seen is Nikon and Alexa. But if we get back to your point the Slog is more or less unusable to 9 out of 10 people, or even more seeing the number of thread popping out on all forums. So what the fuss being made, as one of the supposivelly image quality of the camera cannot be used by the vast majority. This reminds me the story of Arri and Red. While the geeks shooters where talking up Red cameras because of 4k, high speed etc etc, compared to the 2k supposedly lower quality and overprice Alexa. In the end Alexa ruled the Cinema and commercial market and you them talking about the advance in the last Dragon colour science because it comes closer to the Alexa. While they where dismissing the Alexa colour science before as nothing that superior.

I know I will be lambasted here, but I will never understand the hype with this camera. I also will look like a fan boy but what is the fuss about a camera when it cannot to the basic right. If just shooting a human being you need to be some guru in colour correction, whoa. I have been a graphic designer then became a photographer for nearly a decade now. I photography mostly human for commercial, fashion and weddings and I think I am quite good at colour correcting in lightroom, photoshop and now Davinci resolve. But whoa, I am completely lost in the level of setting etc etc that people are going at colour grading the A7s. It is like rocket science with 3d colour luts etc. With my Nikon's it just add or remove some saturation, do a little Scurve and voila, beautiful skin tone. Then if you want to have all types of looks like cross procesing etc. At least the base is here and you can build from it. I think that the Nikons are mature 1080p camera now. My D7100 is already quite good, but I think I will ubgrade to the D750 early next year, for its added low light and 60 fps at 1080p. Very good DR, 1080p resolution, great low light to at least 6400 iso and no one is complaining about horrible Jello (Look at the train in your video, realy distracting). Another mention would be the Black magic 2.5k cinema camera. Great resolution, DR and Codec. I had one concern it was the moire/aliasing, but they just launched a filter that removes it and with a speed booster you are getting Cinema 35mm and another stop for high ISO. Just as an extreme example, the other day I fell on this guy video filming with............. a D600. Must be on one of the worst (because of aliasing and moire) older Nikon model. Look at the skin tone etc. I react much more emotionally to that, than any of those super spec A7s geeky video footage.

Whoaw I have pretty good eyesight and do not wear any glasses and was never able to see pixel. I mean at watch-able viewing distance at movie theater. I have seen numerous article and lectures where the conclusion was that humans being could not see beyond 2k at normal viewing distance.

4k is another marketing strategy to increase price, it won't bring anything to the movie experience. With motion blur, 99% of the time you won't see any difference, if it is even possib to see. What it will do is show all the flaw of set, props etc.

The thing look completely false, as someone is saying it like looking at a video game trailer. One thing that really take a hit for me is the CGI character. They look exactly like game characters and false. They create a disconnect with the story because they have no reality in them. It is a giant step backward for CGI, who has for the most part the last 10 years been to a level that they are believable.

Test of lee powells gama control picture profile shows you how much DR is in the Nikon shadows for video. https://vimeo.com/108015355 https://vimeo.com/108015354

Just google Nikon D800 bbc test. In this test done by the guy who does test for the BBC the D800 is at 11.9 and the D4 at 13 stop. Since then most of the Nikons have been rated at about the same level. You can search for Samul H who does Flaat picture profile and you will see that his conclusion is about the same. The zacuto test also gave the Canon 5d3 about 11 stop in there non raw test. I did a test here http://www.dvxuser.com/V6/showthread.php?311058-Nikon-D7100-12-13-Dynamic-range-test for my D7100 and it was also about 12 stop. This is in video because in photo the Nikon are all about 14 and now Nikon D810 closer to 15 stop. The concept that Canon is considered more reliable than Nikon is a bit ludicrous, both have got some very reliable camera and some duds. But in general I don't see anyone question Nikon vs Canon in terms of reliability at least in the long run as Nikons have been use in space and war zone for decades.

Why should Canon have to change their sensor!!!!!!!!!!. It is known that they have not changed fabrication sensor tech since about 5d2 and 7d compared to Sony who have invested massively in thinner process for its sensors. This is why you find this gap and that the sensor since about the 7d and 5d2 performance have not evolved that much. But since they have the best marketing department in the world with their fan boys, that won't criticize or admit that Canon is lagging behind, because their ego will take some beating. They can just tweak and not invest a cent as the money will still be flowing in.

I prefer to listen to scientific test that to listen to people subjective opinion. DXO has brought peace to the world of digital photography at least to the non Canon fanboys who want to convince themselves that their beloved brand is still at the top to feel well. Look at this comparative done by Canon shooters . I have the a Canon 7d that I bought for video long time ago, I can tell you that it lags behind a lot compared to my D7100 in terms of DR as in the video above (My d7100 somehow does exibit some banding and is the only Nikon selling model now having it). In video it is different, in general the Nikons have been measured about 12 stop (the D4 was 13 stop) and the Canon's at about 10.5 - 11 stop.

It is the same than the Canon 2008-2010 models!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

My example was to illustrate gain in the most basic way. But I think that 99.9% do a visual work for it to shown and to get some gratification from it. Be it, just some likes on facebook or on youtube or to be an international recognise artist. But for most of those who are low to no budget one man band shooter, the additional layer of knowledge and how to use it for colour grading is going to break many project. I consider myself a good to very good colorist, in the sense that I have been a photographer/graphic designer the last 15 years and working a lot with RAW for a decade. But my mind boggles when I see those A7s grading threat. If you have to get that much yechnical knowledge to at least get a usable image !!!!!!! How many will fail, will overdo etc etc and there image will look crap. This and 4k (too much detail that it will be difficult for set/props/costume design, make up etc) will be the downfall of many of I guest the geeky indie film-maker community.

http://www.dvxuser.com/V6/showthread.php?303559-Measuring-rolling-shutter-put-a-number-on-this-issue!/page5 So in full frame it is between 30.5 and 34.5, about Nikon D90 level !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! LOL

I have push the shadows in post a lot and I find virtually no noise at 1600 and 3200 and it is quite low at 6400. You have to push the contrast a lot to see the noise at 1600 or 3200.

I am far from a Canon fan, but really how come some people just resume a camera by it spec. When they go and market their job to their client, do they bring the spec sheet of their camera, or do their client care about the spec sheet. I see perhaps 1 out of 5, or 1 out of 10 videos of the A7s that is good. The rest the colours, more so with Slog is just ok to horrible. Just look at the amount of thread about how to .... try to get good colours out of the Sony's. For sure some can because they are good colourist but most are mediocre. Being a colourist is an art of its own. When you are more or less a one man band indie or freelance shooter, you have to be a shooter, an editor and now with Sony a good colourist. While Canon (I am a Nikon user) will provide you with a good image out of the box, just add a little contrast and saturation and you are good to go. No need to be an expert to at least get a good image to start with. For me since I got my D7100 (hopefully D750 in not too long), I thought that its the cameramen the limiting factor and no more the camera. If I cannot do beautiful image out of it, I won't with more expensive camera. The reasoning is simple if lesser camera like the gh2 have seen theatrical release, how can people devalue camera like the C100/C300 which are already much better. As shown here the C300 has been used in award winning Festival. One won the fucking biggest film festival in the world. So show us your masterpiece shot on your Sony A7s.

Ebrahim, you should open a thread dedicated to the d810. It seems to be a winner in terms of resolution/detail and DR. Unfortunately I already have a D800 and that is why I am more in search of details on the D750 to complement it as a more versatile and manageable 24 megapixel camera, as most of the time the 36 megapixel is overkill for mos jobs. I did a little test with the second image and it shows very good DR. With the white sunny lit white façade on one side and the darker shadows like the black car, and to be able to still show detail with an image that has been re-compressed, I think is very good.

The last video is really a stress test for moire, I can see it in two places, above the 15 in the centre and at the base of tubular structure, but we are talking resolution chart frequencies in this case.

There is zero motion and the only one in motion is slowmotion which does not about the Sony video look. It is strange but 24p should look like 24 p right. But with the Sony many time it looks like video, something more like frame interpolation in TVs.

I think that if you put a Nikon D90 or Canon T2i behind the Angenieux zoom you won't have this image quality. On the other extreme if you put an Alexa or another high end Sony or Red camera, for me the gain would have been incremental. What I mean is that between those two extremes, the C300/C100 would have been much closer to the high-end raw/prores camera that the low end dslr. The blue ruin one was done with Canon glass. Another thing of note is that those two films, more so Blue ruin, is more like Indie film making, with very small crew and budget. Blue Is The Warmest Colour, was more like freedom from big studio which gave more liberty and time for the director, with smaller crew etc. The camera did give them that liberty in many ways and if you look at them (I am just basing my though on the trailer for Blue ruin), they look much more naturalistic camera on the shoulder, not the overly complex lit and graded Hollywood style movie.

You also have the 2013 Cannes films festival winner that was shot with the C300 . Many still think that if a camera does not have x,y,z features, then it is not good enough. Today, the camera is no more the limiting factor, it is the man behind the camera. As much as it pains me about Canon dslr camera strategy, this C100 will sell like hot cakes. It is a good 8/10 on all the features of a video camera, good to very good in DR. lowlight, rolling shutter, colour science, ergonomics etc. Today if you don't have geek headline grabbing features like 4k or cannot shoot clean + 10 000 ISO etc, then your camera is just good for the bin. While most of these headline grabbing camera have one or more big weaknesses like colour science or ISO etc.

Use a downloader like downloadhelper on firefox, you just can save the video on your harddisk. I do that most of the times because my internet connection is not very fast .