Tim Naylor

PS. I was torn between Ronin and a Letus Helix so I purchased both knowing I'd send one back. They both arrived about the same time. Though I love the concept of the Helix's design better after one look at all the software hoops I'd have to jump through, I packed it up and sent it back. Buy both cameras if you can afford (or do it on credit), do some simple flesh, chart and motion tests and send the loser home.

My biggest moment was bringing my A7s to Germany to visit my father in law. He had been stricken by Lassa fever in Sierra Leone eight years ago, rushed to Germany, was in a coma for 6 months, and ended up in a wheel chair for eight years. But then my wife and I got word he started walking in September. So we rushed out from Brooklyn to visit him in Germany. I took my A7s to shoot photos and film this amazing development. But I had to be mindful as he's a proud man (a physician and African Chief). I needed something that would be discrete and unobtrusive. With the silent shutter, ability to shoot from the hip and with no lights or flash, the A7s caught some of the most beautiful moments that I couldn't with another camera. Then when I showed him the technology and what it could do he was completely blown away - and of course got up and walked for the camera. 

Another thing to consider is what kind of work do you plan to do with it. I'd seriously consider the Sony Fs7. It may end up being cheaper than the Red 1. Even though the R1 may list cheaper once you add in support, media, drives, batteries/charger, accessories, you may end up spending more. The FS7 will give you 4k and better high speed options. Whether its IQ is as good remains to be seen. In terms of work, assuming the FS7's  IQ is up to the task, it would probably work more as it's well suited to small crew/doc as well as narrative. R1 is not a good doc / run and gun camera.

I agree there are some great advantages to 4k but my response is based on how many of its champions here seem to have little concern about flesh tone and color accuracy. There's more talk about specs than skin tone. I see "tests" here all the time without charts or faces. I've followed Hurlbut's camera tests and he does them right. He's essentially trying to keep everything constant except the variable he's testing. I find it great he lets the public see them free of charge. Most of my work these days is in episodic and re-creation TV, some movies. The biggest deciding factors from production heads and directors always boils down to faces, work flow, ease of use and cost. Resolution is quite far down the list. There's a reason why F5/55's are not a big hit. If it's colors were anything close to Arri or Canon it would dominate. I'm hoping the Fs7 does something special.

I agree there are some great advantages to 4k but my response is based on how many of its champions here seem to have little concern about flesh tone and color accuracy. There's more talk about specs than skin tone. I see "tests" here all the time without charts or faces. I've followed Hurlbut's camera tests and he does them right. He's essentially trying to keep everything constant except the variable he's testing. I find it great he lets the public see them free of charge. Most of my work these days is in episodic and re-creation TV, some movies. The biggest deciding factors from production heads and directors always boils down to faces, work flow, ease of use and cost. Resolution is quite far down the list. There's a reason why F5/55's are not a big hit. If it's colors were anything close to Arri or Canon it would dominate. I'm hoping the Fs7 does something special.

4k the future? The viewing distance of a computer monitor is not much more than an arm's length. So sure 4k is noticeable. It's 9 feet in a living room. I leave the math up to you.
 
Not sure how much doc work you do or testing of variable ND's you've done but variable ND's have considerable issues in terms color cast, IR contamination, as well background flaring / contrast issues and then usability (have fun using it with a sun shade).  Compare the IQ of any variable to a straight ND. You'll see background contrast especially in the bokeh is muddier as well as color distortions. If continuity figures into your shooting, the latter can be a big problem. Even with Heliopans.
 
Regarding EF lenses on super 35mm as a waste, how can you justify that? Loads of shoots, professional and amateur alike use them to great effect. Virtually every paying doc  job uses a 70-200 at some point. In super 35 you get considerably less fall off towards the corners. 
 
Concerning the Fs7, I think it's a great concept on paper. Until I've used it or seen some good tests/footage from it, it's just specs. And if specs were everything, the Alexa would be a waste and the industry would be dominated by f5/55's. Have you had a chance to shoot / grade Fs7? Love to know what you think, flawed opinion or not.
 
Hurlbut's review of course is tainted by his biases like all of our opinions. For you, 4k seems to a be a priority. For many, like me, it's not. The consistency with Hurlbut that I share as well is that he leans towards cameras that produce rich but natural flesh tones and low noise. All of his tests use faces  and color charts (not trees, buildings, cars, bridges, etc). He's trying to discern the camera's accuracy and ability to re-produce that which he thinks is most important, flesh tone. Based on this, I thought the IQ overall from his C100 II tests looked outstanding (except bad clipping in one shot). Hopefully, he does a proper A/B with Fs7.

Skin tones are definitely something people notice perhaps more than all other aspects of a camera (rez, DR, etc). When the skin tones are off (magenta, green, etc), it cheapens the look.  When I screened an ABC blind test on a 20 foot screen to my producers and director, they all chose the Alexa (over RED and F55) primarily because they like the way the skin looked. If the color of a tree or building are off it's of little consequence but the face is a different story. It's why when we do tests to judge the parameters of a camera it's always with a face and a color chart.

I tried these settings from Kholi Hicks for my A7s. Definitely a big improvement for grading accurate skin tone. Restored much hope in my A7s.
 
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   It gives a very juicy and gradeable flesh tone.

IR VARI ND or Normal VARI ND. Try this white balance to a grey card without filter, shoot face. Then add filter without white balance, shoot face and gray card so we can see the amount of shift. Then white balance with grey card/filter and shoot face and see how it compares to the first. We'll get an idea of the amount shift and how correctable it is.

Own A7s. Had a 5D3. Never used ML on jobs for variety of reasons. Sometimes I wonder about my decision to get rid of 5d3. For stills it's far superior. For video, I find the colors of 5d3 in a different league than A7s. While A7s is better for me in almost every other category (DR and resolution), it wouldn't surprise me if you showed a side by side clip to a regular audience member or client, they may very well prefer the 5d3. Most humans don't care about resolution. They do sense when colors are off. I did a similar blind test between  F55, Dragon and Alexa projected in front of producers and the director for a feature I shot last Summer. Alexa won unanimously, Dragon 2nd and F55 last. Despite the Alexa being 2k, the others 6k and 4k, the skin tones won the day.

Own A7s. Had a 5D3. Never used ML on jobs for variety of reasons. Sometimes I wonder about my decision to get rid of 5d3. For stills it's far superior. For video, I find the colors of 5d3 in a different league than A7s. While A7s is better for me in almost every other category (DR and resolution), it wouldn't surprise me if you showed a side by side clip to a regular audience member or client, they may very well prefer the 5d3. Most humans don't care about resolution. They do sense when colors are off. I did a similar blind test between  F55, Dragon and Alexa projected in front of producers and the director for a feature I shot last Summer. Alexa won unanimously, Dragon 2nd and F55 last. Despite the Alexa being 2k, the others 6k and 4k, the skin tones won the day.

Get both. Regular ND's will always be better optically but there are situations where they are not practical. If you're shooting doc work by the time you change filters the shot is gone. With variables, I don't lose the shot. I can live with artifacts and getting the shot as opposed to no artifacts and losing the shot. I set my stop and just ride it up and down. The problem is cheap / bargain variable really suck. Mainly color shift being the problem. Fork out the money and get a decent Heliopan or Tiffen IR Variable ND if it's for paying work. For regular ND's I recommend the Tiffen White Water IR ND set (3,6,9,12,15,18, 21). Colors are clean as a whistle. 

Andy, while I respect Matthew Duclos' tech work and opinions, sometimes he gets a bit too tech in his assessment of what makes good glass. He gave the new Schneider Xenons a thumbs up and to be honest, I think they're somewhat dull and soulless. I did an A, B and C test between Xenons, Zeiss Mk3's and Cooke S4's. The Zeiss and Cooke wiped the floor with them in every respect, especially  in terms of color / flesh tone rendition. The flaring on Xenons was pretty clinical. Also, certain lenses were next to impossible to flare due to recessed front elements. What I see in his assessment of the Veydra's are just chart shooting and comparison charts. No faces, bokeh, flare, and all that good stuff that makes up the soul of a lens.  Hopefully, I can get my hands on the Veydra's soon and find out if they're the real deal. 

They're is some great C mount glass out there. From the markings it looks like the focus draw is about 180 degrees. 

Andy, while I respect Matthew Duclos' tech work and opinions, sometimes he gets a bit too tech in his assessment of what makes good glass. He gave the new Schneider Xenons a thumbs up and to be honest, I think they're somewhat dull and soulless. I did an A, B and C test between Xenons, Zeiss Mk3's and Cooke S4's. The Zeiss and Cooke wiped the floor with them in every respect, especially  in terms of color / flesh tone rendition. The flaring on Xenons was pretty clinical. Also, certain lenses were next to impossible to flare due to recessed front elements. What I see in his assessment of the Veydra's are just chart shooting and comparison charts. No faces, bokeh, flare, and all that good stuff that makes up the soul of a lens.  Hopefully, I can get my hands on the Veydra's soon and find out if they're the real deal. 

Hello all,
 
I've been a DP most of my career, a situation where I shoot footage and then the manipulation of the footage is literally out of my hands. With movies, I sit in on the grades and supervise, but I don't actually work the tools. On commercials, the footage is completely out my control after wrap. Except with cutting and grading finished  footage for my reels, my experience with hands on grading is moderate. Now, however, I'm originating many of my own personal projects: shooting, cutting and grading them.
 
Much of this burst in personal creativity has been inspired by the A7s. Its size, sensitivity, etc has truly liberated much of my shooting. However, while I've for the most part have been able to get the tones I like, the A7s has been exceedingly difficult. I find getting a rich and accurate flesh tone difficult.  I know it can be done because I've seen a few excellent examples. Most examples I've seen have been disappointing. 
 
So what I'm asking is for anyone who's unlocked the secret sauce to share their LUTs, CC settings and shooting protocol. 
 
Here's some footage I recently shot for B roll for project I'm shooting. S log 2. Exposures have plenty to play with. I boosted the saturation in camera by 10-13. I did a pass in FCPX CC. I can't get the grade right.
 

 
And this is footage from a screen test for one of our talent. I was able to get considerably better colors on my 5d3 in the flesh tones. Also originated on Slog2, A7s, Sat +13.
 
 

 
I'm considering purchasing Osiris. Any thoughts or alternatives I should consider.
 
Please lets keep this on topic and constructive.
 
Thanks,
 
Tim

Check out the Pretzval. Not the most practical lens for everyday shooting. Used it on a commercial for interviews and the client went nuts over it. Truly a different look. 
 
http://shop.lomography.com/us/lenses?gclid=CNPSkNqJ-MECFW8A7AodhCYAMQ
 
Another favorite of mine are Super Baltars. But they've become quite pricey.
 
The thumbnail is grab of an interview we shot on the Pretzval 

Enough already with the slagging off on Roger Deakins. It's an embarrassing level of arrogance and ignorance. It's like saying as a painter you can't learn anything from Michaelangelo because he had all the Pope's resources at hand. If you think what makes him great are resources unattainable to you I suggest truly study how he does things. Composition, direction/shape of light, blocking are all tools he understands at a high level that are also available to the amateur. And he has the good grace to share much of  his trade with you on his site for free. 
 
But regarding his choice for mirrored shutter, I completely understand as quite often, the level of detail he needs (he is shooting for 20-40 foot screens), just isn't present on an EVF. I shoot with Alexa's quite often and though it has the best EVF in the business, it's still doesn't render the detail you need to see for big screen shooting. Now consider Deakins operates as well, running back to monitor isn't always practical.
 
That said, when it comes to a small camera like the A7s, I'm quite happy it's mirror less. It keeps the size way down. I also shoot a lot of stills with it, and the silent shutter has allowed me to get shots that I can't with the noise of a mirrored shutter. However, when I'm shooting more involved video work, I always use an onboard monitor because I find both its LCD and EVF insufficient for pulling / maintaining focus.

This sort of modular build is reminiscent of Red where I can say as a former Epic  / R1 owner, the body is the cheap part. To be functional on a pro level costs a fortune (my package was about 150k USD, the "brain" was a fraction of that) .
 
But let's start with the basics a semi-pro needs to be functional.
 
Axiom Body (2or 4 grand at retail).
4k recorder
EVF
On board Monitor
Media (whatever it uses)
AB or Vmount Battery system (four batts, charger, batt plate)
Baseplate and rods
Mattebox
Canon Adaptor (the semi pro won't be buying PL glass)
ND IR Set (Axiom has no built in ND)
SDI Module (Price?)
Hand Held Rig
 
Put in your estimates, add it all up and tell me does it cost less than Sony's proposed price of an F7s? Will it be as functional without built in ND's? Will you be using or buying more lights with its less than stellar ISO? Will you lose set up time lugging a battery system instead of small internal mount batts that'll get you till lunch until you have to change? How well will it talk with Canon EF Lenses? Is your Alphatron or Zacuto EVF driving you nuts already? Are you better off buying a used Red 1 MX with better ISO, IQ and established workflow?
 
How much do you really save?
 
Things to think about before pulling the trigger on any system.

This sort of modular build is reminiscent of Red where I can say as a former Epic  / R1 owner, the body is the cheap part. To be functional on a pro level costs a fortune (my package was about 150k USD, the "brain" was a fraction of that) .
 
But let's start with the basics a semi-pro needs to be functional.
 
Axiom Body (2or 4 grand at retail).
4k recorder
EVF
On board Monitor
Media (whatever it uses)
AB or Vmount Battery system (four batts, charger, batt plate)
Baseplate and rods
Mattebox
Canon Adaptor (the semi pro won't be buying PL glass)
ND IR Set (Axiom has no built in ND)
SDI Module (Price?)
Hand Held Rig
 
Put in your estimates, add it all up and tell me does it cost less than Sony's proposed price of an F7s? Will it be as functional without built in ND's? Will you be using or buying more lights with its less than stellar ISO? Will you lose set up time lugging a battery system instead of small internal mount batts that'll get you till lunch until you have to change? How well will it talk with Canon EF Lenses? Is your Alphatron or Zacuto EVF driving you nuts already? Are you better off buying a used Red 1 MX with better ISO, IQ and established workflow?
 
How much do you really save?
 
Things to think about before pulling the trigger on any system.

The biggest problem I see with E mount is the lack of well built adaptors. Yesterday,  I returned a full set of Rokinons EF mounts and Metabones EF to E mount because the Metabones has the slightest bit of play between the lens and adaptor. I tested some others and they all seem to suffer from that. It may not be a big a big deal for hand held or run and gun but for precise focus work on a stable platform, the slightest jiggle becomes noticeable even more so on longer lenses. I'll actually be using my A7s for an ambitious commercial campaign mixed with the F55. It's really the best Full Frame option. But I can't have a client watching us blow macro takes or slider moves because of focus jiggle. 
 
It's the same problem I had with the Nikon to Red 1 mount that Red used to sell. So I worked with Jacek at Optitek and he designed a PL style Nikon mount (based off the old vista vision mounts) that is rock solid. I was his beta tester. It soon became the standard for Nikon to PL. He makes an EF to Sony F mount (for F55/5) based on the same PL lock principle and it too is a rental house standard. Nothing moves. I'm sure if enough people write in to him, it may get him interested enough to design an EF to Emount that's bullet  proof. He did that with Nikon to Red and there will be a lot more Emount out there than Reds. Here's the link: http://optitek.org
 
So my solution for  now, I bought all Emount Rokinons. Solid mount. For my Nikon AIS, I use a Velo adaptor. This one is pretty solid and cheap. Metabones for the price is a big disappointment in terms of their tolerances, pro price, toy like precision.

Who are these people? They probably don't have to work with one. I've spent all Summer with a C300 for an NBC show, and I hate the camera more and more each day. We've destroyed a couple top handles, three DC ports, created more Franken rigs than I care to remember, etc. Canon's problem isn't having young designers, it's having clueless designers who probably never had to earn a living with a camera. Otherwise, they'd never come out with such ass backwards stuff. They got it more twisted than Red, and that takes some effort. They still have one foot in photography and haven't fully committed to video. EVF in the rear, external 4k for 25k, XLR inseparable from their LCD in the  most inane place, top  heavy.......crack and work don't mix.
 
I'll give a hall pass on DSLR's or mirror less because of the small size and all the good things that entails. But for dedicated video cams, ergonomics and simple use is king. Please Sony, get it right.

While some may not be a fan of Andrew's clips content, I truly appreciate what it shows us. The high ASA possibilities of the A7s have my mind reeling. And as someone who started on film for several years, I'm not nostalgic for it at all. I don't miss ten minute rolls. I don't miss the time it takes to thread a Panavision. I don't miss the lousy monitoring from a film camera. I don't miss not being able to see how it's going to look on set. Most of all, I don't miss the expense. Independents can put more money and time towards talent, locations, art, etc.
 
Keep up the footage coming Andrew. 
 
Only question I have is: When you record to your Atomos, are u going through a 4k down convert box first?

I've shot virtually all of your Level cameras except the F5 and C500. I still think Epic color science was much to be desired. Range is great but skin tones are not there. If it was pure IQ/grade ability I'd put the F65 on top. 16 bit color / 8 k down sample is hard to beat. Just rarely used it because it's ergonomics stink and initially its work flow was cumbersome. I also think the F55 deserves a higher slot. If you shoot in 4k raw it delivers an incredibly gradeable image with global shutter and 16 bit color. 16 bit epecially with 4k cameras is a big deal as Epic tends to spread its butter thin so speak. The time I've wasted trying to get skin to look just right.
 
I had a GH3 and ditched it for a 5d3 because I found its DR too limited as well as its noise threshold. Sure it's sharper but the image, fleshtones, general color are no match for 5d3 IMO.
 
Eitherway, it's a cool list and definitely puts things in perspective when you see DSLR's knocking at the door of Level 1.

Erik, I follow your blog. I buy much of what you say from the perspective of a fellow working cameraman who pays his mortgage with TV work. Many of the user unfriendly features become a deal breaker on field. While acceptable for the personal art project, when the meter's running high, delays with gear futzing or failure loses you clients fast.  I'll probably end up getting an A7s but won't use it for work until it's rigged right. I use on board monitors with DSLR's because I'm expected to get virtually everything in focus. So I'd go the Shogun route. Now if I can find a reliable way to secure HDMI.