tellure

Hey everyone, I am getting tired of bad gimbal reviews. I rarely have time to make them, but trying to do more and more when I can. Here is my honest opinion on the weebill lab.
 

Yes but come on, A7 III low light level isn't good enough? I think in video FF we have reached an amazing level of high iso low noise now. 
24-36mpx is good I think. On top of that it allows for crop mode which the A7S cannot do. Crop mode in video is magical, 2 lenses in one without quality loss. 

These sensors seem more suited to an A9II, or A9R. Mayybe an A7RIV? They need a higher tier of processing power, and thus will come in at a higher price, and thus a different market, than the A7xxxx series.
IMO all the A7SIII really needs to be, to be a huge sales success right now, is just an A7III with a 18-20MPish sensor (so APS-C 4K is 1:1 or slightly oversampled), 4K60p, and the better EVF and screen of the A7RIII. That's it. Everything else about the A7III is good enough right now. Release this cam now and every workaday videographer and sub-Hollywood production house buys it, simple as that.
8K, insane framerates, 10bit, the other nuances we wish for here just aren't as important as we think they are, not to the bulk of this camera's market. The market that really cares about these things will have zero problem paying another $1500 for an A9II.

A bit of context...
1. Sony have 3 main line of Camera: 
Alpha: Prosumer, photo camera that can shoot video FS(5 or 7), F5 and F(55 or 65): Super35 Cinema camera Venice: Full Frame Cinema camera In all those only the F65 shoot 8K. Neither the Venice, F5, F7 or F55 actually shoot 8K. 
2. 8K 60MP (or 75MP) at 24fps generate a huge amount of data, that needs to be processed, and stored somewhere. This require fast multi-processor or multi-core to compute all that branch of 0 & 1 into something we can use actually to tell our story. Such type of processor for a such intensive hungry computing generate... heat and therefore, needs a good cooling system, what you have in any Cinema Camera that part of the reason why Cinema Camera are bulky!
3. Hungry Processing needs more power, meaning bigger or more effective battery or more power efficient processor or a combination of both of the latest in the best case.
4. SD card will not be enough. Will need CFast, CFExpress or XQD (if still exist)
With that in mind, in order to put such Sensor (because the rumour was only on the Sensor) in a Sony Alpha A7x body, Sony will have to fix:
the processing issue, the heat issue generated by the processor (and the sensor) otherwise you guys will be the first to say that this Camera is not usable because of overheating (I guess Sony already learned this lesson), and the battery issue, otherwise you'll complain about poor battery life that does not last a full day of shooting Other thing, by putting these Sensor (35, 60, 75 MP) in their Alpha body, Sony will eventually Cannibalised his Cinema line up (at least the FS). Those Camera main differentiator will then be the RAW capabilities, eventually higher bit rate.
So I don't think those new sensor will come in the any of the Sony Alpha body soon, they may be going in newer version of the Sony Cinema lineup. Don't be too enthusiast just by a new sensor announcement rumor. Wait for the real rumor on the new A7SIII or A7IV or A7000 to be exited!

It’s highly, highly, highly, highly unlikely you’ll get those kind of specs in the A7SIII. 
I think it will look like:
- 4k 60fps (10bit external) 
- Better lowlight, battery, EVF etc 
- PDAF
- Higher MP 
- One surprise (like a 4k 120fps burst mode) 

I agree, I have a feeling that these sensors are going straight into the Venice line.
And, I agree that we will have a hard time editing them now, but we can keep them for later????
I don’t know... we are constantly looking at gear and comparing, having G.A.S.... and eventually upgrading...
May be having one camera like this that will rule them all will stop us from looking, comparing and upgrading... and actually concentrating on content.

The only unknown is the white balance on both cameras. Sean mentioned using a white card to properly set it, but this doesn't have to mean that it was set the same. 
 
Besides, have anyone heard about this C / M / Y correlation regarding skin tones? 

Yes, I really wish it were available on the current generation of bodies. Really awesome, pro-level idea, much like what the Varicams offer with wireless CDL creation.
I think we need to differentiate here between RAW stills color and encoded 8-bit video color, because there is a profound gap in workflow, results, and flexibility between the two. We also need to clarify how we are grading our files, because speed and quality differs wildly between various methods. For example, using the DaVinci color managed workflow gives you a corrected starting point with virtually no work, so all you have to do from there is tweak and do your creative grading. If you're just grading SLOG/SGamut files from scratch with levels and curves, your experience will change drastically. So for the sake of clear communication, let's be very specific when describing how we deal with our footage.
Another angle to think about: ease of results matters. The Alexa is popular not only for its reliability and image quality, but for its dead simple workflow. In many cases, corporate and commercial work can make do with nothing more than Arri's r.709 LUT, with maybe a small tweak or two. THAT IS HUGE! Saving time, minimizing complexity and miscommunications between set and post (many DPs do not get to grade their own footage!), jumping straight into edit with a robust easy-to-cut codec...these are all enormous time and money savers. Compare that to RED and, while the image quality is outstanding, you have to deal with large difficult files requiring in depth knowledge of their various sensors, color spaces, gamma, etc. So when saying "you can always grade to match," keep in mind that while you often can, it takes time. It takes money. Expertise. More communication with whoever's handling your post. That is why out of camera color still matters, despite all the powerful color tools we have now.

'Colour Science' is the systems used by manufacturers to interpolate missing colour information that their sensors can't capture. The Red Green and Blue colour filter arrays ( CFA's ) on sensors determine how accurate the colour capture can be on a sensor with stronger colour filters enabling better colour fidelity however stronger filters mean that less overall light is getting to the photo-sites which reduces sensitivity so manufacturers are always playing these 2 things off against each other. As photosite sensor size goes down due to smaller sensors and higher density's the situation is getting worse but obviously better algorithms are at work trying to interpolate missing colour information. On top of that if you are using an internal Y'CbCr codec where there is reduced colour information in the first place even with a 4.2.2 codec and worse a 4.2.0 codec you are left with not that much colour info to work with. RAW which is RGB is obviously better here. Now most people are not too bothered about differentiating between slightly different hues of green in foliage but our eyes and brains are programmed to be extremely sensitive to even the slightest changes in skin colour so getting interpolated colour decisions wrong in this area even by a very tiny amount will lead to huge apparent differences in skin tone quality and people liking or hating a particular brand's 'colour science'. Canon's approach seems to be one of it knows it can't get it accurate so let's make it pleasing and give everyone a nice suntan.

Awesome series!  Camera fumble portrait is such a great tip, can't wait to use it.

Looks really good. Can't wait til this tech makes it to full frame prosumer cams.

Looks really good. Can't wait til this tech makes it to full frame prosumer cams.

Been too slammed to finish this, but finally able to put something together. All vanilla settings: 2.7k, 100iso, GoPro color, Sharpness low. Double mount to Handler grip. This was meant to test Hypersmooth in Hero7 Black. No audio as it is pulled from a much longer video I'm working on.
 

Great video that Max just posted, make sure to watch on a nice large screen.
 

@mojo43, I'd also love to hear your tips on crafting the audio tracks.  Your videos have a ton of great sound effects to sell the transitions and action, which makes a huge difference.  Be curious to hear where you get your effects, how you choose and edit them, etc.

I just created the first video of hopefully more about how to create a Good Travel Video. All based on my experiences and past, but wanted to see if you guys/gals had any thoughts around things that you would want to see and if you are even interested at all??
 

Actually, this morning I took the same Mavic 2 pro DLOG h.265 clip into both PP 2018 and then PP 2019 applied the same effects (lens correction, LUT and adjustments) and rendered them both out in h.264. Took exactly the same time give or take a second or two.
The new curves are very nice and intuitive in PP 2019 though.

Very interesting video about face detect autofocus, my only gripe is his shutter angle which make it very videoyiii.
 
, my only grype

Some footage shot last month. After shooting with this little camera for a few days - my GH5 feels like a brick.
Camera Settings
Picture Profile - Muted, Sharpness -2, Saturation +1
White Balance - Sunny
IBIS - Sensor shift only
No grade - file straight out of camera
Lens - Olympus 17mm f1.8

This is a quick discussion on the gear that I used to film GO Colombia which can be seen here: https://youtu.be/JhChJh5cOUE
 
 

No, I’d have a comparison based on how I would use the setup. If I had a C200 or 1DXii with the 24-70mm f/2.8, I’d use it wide open. If I had an X-T3 and 23mm f/2, I’d use it wide open and if I had a GH5s with the 12-35mm f/2.8, I’d use it wide open. Sensor size fairness is for kindergartners, I only care about how I would use the camera/lens in a real world scenario. 

I don't understand why camera tests should be "fair". Its strange to me. Its like the popular "everything else equal". It never is

Here is a quick shootout of the Fuji X-T3, Canon 1DXMk2, Canon C200 and Panasonic GH5S. Granted FCPX refused to not blowout some of the footage of camera B. It's displayed correctly in some of the head to head comparisons. I think it might have been caused by a software bug in FCPX. In any case all four cameras were filming in base ISO in controlled lighting. Opinions welcomed.
 

The Cameras

In this corner, we have the Sony F3--episodic TV and corporate/commercial workhorse, best known for its use on season 1 of Key and Peele and the feature film Safety Not Guaranteed. Super 35 2.4K sensor that downscales to 1080p in-camera. 10-bit output up to 4:4:4 RGB. 

In this corner, the Sony A7 III--a modern hit, barely out and already one of the most popular mirrorless cameras around. Full frame 24 megapixel sensor that downscales to 4K from both the full sensor and from the APS-C crop. 8-bit 4:20 internally, with the option for 4:2:2 externally. 

The Test
I generally light my work, so I thought I'd test with a scenario I often face: talking head interviews. One big soft key, a soft backlight, something splashing the background, maybe a practical. Now, this is a hella lazy, sloppy lighting execution--the backlight is a little too far around, background splash not nearly strong or interesting enough, and there's a huge bit of blank wall amidst the clutter--but it does contain some useful information. More on that after the camera notes. Just keep in mind that it was a rush job and try not to be too critical. 

Each camera used the same Leica R 35mm Summicron set to f/5.6. This was to keep color, contrast, and sharpness consistent, as not all my Rs match perfectly and I wanted any differences in the image to be down to the cameras. I did not adjust the tripod distance, instead opting to let precise frame matching go in favor of minimizing inconsistencies. I'll do another test that keeps framing identical. 

Since I unfortunately couldn't get ahold of a color chart for this test, I have a few various colored objects in the scene to act as references. The sweater is a deep forest green, the hat is a pale pinkish-red, the UHaul logo is a distinct orange, and the furniture blanket is a nice primary blue. They don't line up with anything specific on a vectorscope, but I find the subtle differences in how these colors, along with my skin tone, are rendered is quite telling. 

Yes, that is me in the video. I am not a model, or really comfortable on camera at all. My being in the hot seat was PURELY a matter of desperation, as my roommate was busy and I didn't have another day free to do the test. So you'll have to deal with my pale, blotchy face and greasy hair this time. 

The F3 has two sets of clips: one taken internally in XDCAM, one externally in ProRes HQ (10-bit 4:2:2). I don't have access to a 4K recorder, so the A7III files were all recorded internally to the SD card. 

If you have any other questions on my methodology please feel free to ask. Even with the studio conditions, it's very possible that something was overlooked. 

What to Watch For
Personally, these are the elements I found most interesting.
-The colors of the various objects listed above, as well as their relative brightness. The A7, for example, makes the blue moving blanket much brighter.
-The big patch of blank wall behind me is a great place to watch for midtone noise, compression artifacts, and banding. 
-The black portion of the moving blanket, back right corner by the boxes, and the shadow by my left ear under the hair are good spots to look at shadow noise/compression.
-Obviously, the face is there for skin tone reference. I'm pretty pale, and exposed a stop above key to keep noise down, as I generally do in a real interview. This pushed my skintones into the flattest part of the LOG curve, smoothing them out a bit, but in this scenario that's not entirely undesirable. Just something to keep in mind. Additionally, my eyes are a pretty deep shade of blue, with some green flecks. The cameras and color profiles render them with mixed levels of success.
-My hair, beard, and eyes are all good places to look at for fine detail rendering, noise, and moire/aliasing. 
-The lightbulb and background splash were an attempt to look at highlight roll-off, but upon review it doesn't seem all that useful. The next test will use a stronger light doing a better scrape for DR/gradient, as well as a bulb with a filament to see how each camera renders hot highlight detail.

The Footage
These clips are straight out of camera/recorder, with no grading or edits. I could've at least trimmed them for brevity/convenience, but I...didn't want to. So. Sorry. 

You'll find them at this link: https://drive.google.com/open?id=159ig4Dq7emsxIE6GWpwj8H9SX73XMSQU

Feel free to download them and play around. I can show you my grading results, but I find nothing helps more than massaging footage yourself.
Here are the settings for each clip:

F3
1. 1080p Cine1 F35Like ISO400 172.8* shutter f/5.6 (I don't know if F3 internal profiles suck or I just suck WITH them, but getting a good SOOC result with it still eludes me. Think I'll try the AbelCine stuff next.)
2. 1080p SLog1 SGamut ISO 800 172.8* shutter f/5.6 (ISO 800 is native in SLog, which is why it jumps here. Everything is otherwise identical.)
3. 1080p SLog1 SGamut ISO 1600 172.8* shutter f/5.6 (An attempt to test overexposure. In retrospect, I should've opened up to f/4 instead, but this still shows clipping behavior when cranking up ISO for exposure.)
4. 1080p SLog1 SGamut ISO 6400 172.8* shutter f/16 (High ISO noise test. The levels themselves are pretty good, so this is more a test of how much penalty you pay for cranking ISO to get by with smaller fixtures inside.)

A7III 
1. 4K Cine4 SGamut3.cine ISO 400 1/50 f/5.6 Full Frame (with +15 or so saturation. My favorite out of camera profile so far.)
2. 1080p Cine4 SGamut3.cine ISO 400 1/50 f/5.6 Full Frame
3. 4K SLog2 SGamut3.cine ISO 800 1/50 f/5.6 Full Frame (I prefer SLog2 to 3 for banding and skin tones. Like F3, 800 is native for SLog)
4. 1080p SLog2 SGamut3.cine ISO 800 1/50 f/5.6 Full Frame
5. 4K SLog2 SGamut3.cine ISO 1600 1/50 f/5.6 Full Frame
6. 4K SLog2 SGamut3.cine ISO 800 1/50 f/5.6 Crop Mode
7. 1080p SLog2 SGamut3.cine ISO 800 1/50 f/5.6 Crop Mode
8. 4K SLog2 SGamut3.cine ISO 6400 1/50 f/5.6 Crop Mode
9. 4K SLog2 SGamut3.cine ISO 6400 1/50 f/5.6 Full Frame

Again, I'm happy to clarify any questions on my methodology. This was mainly to give me a nice broad spread of information on how my most used settings compare for quality.
Conclusions

I'm more curious what you guys think, so I won't say too much right away. My main take-away is that the F3 is nowhere near obsolete yet...in fact, it's my preferred camera for noise, color, skintones, gradation, and overall look. The A7 has the obvious advantages of full frame, strong internal recording, size/weight, and IBIS. 

Next, I want to see how each camera does with fluorescent, LED, and daylight skintones, as well as mixed color temps, motion, compression/bitrate issues, DR, and resolution/detail. If you have any suggestions for future tests, or anything you'd like to specifically see compared, just let me know and I'll do my best to throw it in. 
Thanks, and hope you enjoy!
 

Insanity: