SRV1981

24 minutes ago, kye said:

If you're using Resolve, you can convert from one to the other, so essentially zero difference.

In practical terms, both will be rubbish until you learn to colour grade.

So Slog3 and Clog2 are the same but clog2 is noticeably different than clog3 ?

What are some of the major differences between these profiles regarding both the ease of achieving a good grade in terms of highlight rolloff and dynamic range as well as the final output ? 

1 hour ago, Gregormannschaft said:

I was looking for a B-cam to my C200, and didn't like any of the Canon offerings. In the end, I think the S5 footage beat out the C200 raw in a lot of circumstances and was definitely easier to work with in post (the C200 raw needs a lot of noise reduction and has huge file sizes).

In terms of image, I think the S line cameras edge out the Sony and Canon cameras, but it's very close. To be honest, I've been thinking of switching to all Sony as I find myself wishing I had reliable AF on a lot of recent shoots. That's a very expensive switch though so I'm dragging my heels on actually following through.

In the end, as others have said, all this gear talk is pretty useless. You can do pretty much anything with any modern camera. All you're really paying for with upgrading is improving your workflow and easing your shooting experience.

In a nutshell, that is what I'm trying to do based on my own unique circumstances. thanks for the feedback!

5 hours ago, Django said:

here's a new video centric review:

so many quirks it seems.. AF, IBIS, that horrible smear bug (wtf) and yeah the zoom lens exposure issues.

I so wanna love this camera cuz on paper the specs are great but then it sounds like so many compromises and also the severe lack of exposure tools. is there even a rec709 assist view when shooting log? I haven't shot Fuji since XT2..

The image just looks awful and I’ve seen the grading they do on other cameras 

1 minute ago, SRV1981 said:

like this?

And this:

10 minutes ago, kye said:

Yet another example of someone who doesn't know how to colour.

If you were going to match the cameras, then why not use a CST to LOG and then use the same LUT.  Colour management tools exist, and have done for many years, this is literally what they're for and is literally the point of the video and he doesn't use them.

like this?

Interesting in this test it seems the c70 matches better in contrast and brightness. 
 

32 minutes ago, TomTheDP said:

I was going to leave my thoughts under the video but decided not to. While Steve's approach makes sense on a big budget film with the best of the best cameras maybe when comparing 35mm film to an ARRI Alexa to a Sony Venice. But I do think the camera and the immediate image it captures is important for most people.
 

I’m okay with polite disagreement. That said, I do feel closest to this view on the subject.  With a one person crew on vacation or a mini-doc many items are sometimes not viable and the better the image off the sensor the less that needs to be done post - or at least the easier it is to get an image you’re content with. 

On 6/5/2022 at 4:42 PM, Gregormannschaft said:

The S1 can also be found for close to 1100 to 1200 versus 4600€ for the FX3. You can’t beat the S series for bang for buck.

Here are a couple of videos a friend and I shot last year on the S5 and S1:

 

This looks great as well! May I ask what drew you to Panasonic vs Sony and canon? Does it simply come down to AF as to why more sales go to the latter ?

3 hours ago, TomTheDP said:

 

Based on this gentleman’s view (I assume from large productions with capacity for lighting and multiple post production folks) - why do you feel there’s a whole forum here with frequent discussion about raw, log, s35 vs ff, s1 vs c70 noise, cell phones etc? None of which come from me. Curious 

4 hours ago, kye said:

Art is art and everything is valid and simply a matter of taste.  Absolutely.

If you were here posting your own work and saying that you like what you're doing, then that would be great.  The problem is that you've come on the forums asking the wrong questions and then disagreeing when people tell you things you don't like or don't align to this phoney world view that you have inherited from YT.  

The question "what camera should I buy to get results like this" is basically the same as saying "what camera can I buy that will mean I don't have to know what I'm doing or understand what entire departments do on a film set".  You may as well ask what time purple smells like rain - it would make about the same amount of sense.

This is my final attempt at giving you advice....   film is hard and you can't buy skill.  I know you don't want to hear this, but, basically, suck it up.  Pretending it's not true just means your skill building process is delayed further, and it sounds like you've already wasted many years already.

You must be fun to have a beer with. 

5 hours ago, kye said:

I'm confused - someone that has done something professionally for decades isn't the best choice and a millennial with a laptop is?

There are lots of films shot in less-than-ideal conditions you know, and any very seasoned colourist will have colour corrected more projects in those situations that the laptop YT colourist will have graded any type of project.

Back in the days of film, it was common to shoot a very low-budget film on the remainders of film reels that had been bought for a movie or TV show but never used.  Sometimes you could buy these cheap from a studio for example.  The problem is that when it came time to edit your film, you had reels of film that were different brands, ages, processes, and had been treated differently (the roll that went out into the desert for a month shooting a Bedouin doco won't be as well cared for as one that was always kept in a fridge in a studio).
Obviously these colourists wouldn't be able to make the film a visual masterpiece, especially considering the project had a low budget to begin with and they were probably only brought in when the cut was deemed unwatchable due to all the colour casts etc.  

So someone who has experience doing this kind of work, and maybe archival restoration and other challenging work, doesn't know as much about grading than someone who waves a camera around and grades on a laptop?

Well, ok, if I insist.  I am that person.  I shoot uncontrolled scenes, in available lighting, and grade on a MBP.  You will now value my advice and wisdom more than a colourist with 50 years of experience.  Go back and re-read all my comments and take in the incredible wisdom I have given you.

What if the thing you're learning is wrong?

Here, let me teach you some things...

• the camera is the only thing that matters in film-making
• FF is the only sensor size worth shooting on in 2022
• getting the highest resolution sensor is the way to choose between cameras
• getting the sharpest lenses is the most important thing in choosing lenses

Wow - what a gift I have just given you!

Not sure why you’re taking this as if it’s a personal attack.  It seems to be standard here to shit on YouTubers - art is subjective.  Millions of viewers enjoy the content and aesthetic if this.  I threw out the idea that maybe folks can learn from then considering they make content millions watch and with little to no help. They don’t have dozens of crew helping shoot and light. They don’t have hundreds of VFX or colorists.  Most do it with 1-2 people or by themselves.  Tyler Stalman from YouTube has a podcast and had a long time major movie DP on and he made similar claims.   We can agree to disagree and I’m cool with it and still value your views and input 

2 hours ago, newfoundmass said:

What you NEED to do, no matter what camera you end up with, is stick with it

This is a fair point ! 

22 minutes ago, BTM_Pix said:

Go to the DPReview studio shot comparison page, select those (or any) cameras at those (or any) ISOs, download the files and make your own mind up.

Thanks just tried it! The image they shit for a7s iii is way smaller but also that is photo not video - would there be a difference. I don’t feel confident deciphering which of the two has better noise producing or a cleaner image 

2 hours ago, androidlad said:

Pixel binning reduces read noise (1 readout instead of 4), hence those 100MP+ smartphone sensors output 12MP in lowlight. A7S3 essentially uses it as a locked down 12MP sensor.

In other words, it performs just as good as same-gen higher pixel FF sensor in A1, there's no longer a need to sacrifice pixel count for low light performance.

But if you compare it to A7S2 or original A7S, the noise performance at lower ISO did get worse, because the higher readout speed requires multiple parallel ADCs and this slightly increases read noise. But at higher ISO they share negligible difference.

That is fascinating.  It makes me think of some debates I've seen as to whether or not the a7iv is a better lowlight camera than the a7sIII due to hits 7k downsampled to 4k readout that creates finer noise.  Any thoughts on the validity of this?  Part of me feels that the a7siii at 12,800 (second native iso) is better than the a7iv at 3200 (second native iso) but unsure if that is in fact true or why that would be?

1 hour ago, BTM_Pix said:

Again, its not the title of the video though is it?

It is you that has titled the thread as it being a masterclass and that is what was being responded to.

The reality is that the actual video you have put up is asking if the phone is a masterpiece.

"Sony Xperia 1IV - A Masterclass in Filmmaking" and "Sony Xperia 1 IV - A Filmmaking Masterpiece?" are very different things.

Although, the answer to the statement in the thread title and the question posed in the actual video are both "absolutely not" in my opinion.

 

Correct - this was as typo; not meant to be my commentary

1 hour ago, webrunner5 said:

Tip here, Sony Phones are Not, I repeat, Not good at working with Motion Pro.

That is fascinating, why do you think that is?

45 minutes ago, sanveer said:

For a phone apparently made for cinematic video, shouldn't it atleast contain all the classical zoom ranges used for fimmmaking, to begin with? 

That seems fair - I do like the image they've captured and created here though with the available ranges.

I get it! I’m just saying - I didn’t make the title! It’s the title of the video. I find you guys to be so knowledgeable and always love to read your takes. 
 

I am curious, you noted you’d rather have a Panasonic hybrid than this cell - but in the other thread regarding shooting raw on a cell you seemed to find value. What, in your view, is the separation?

Just now, projectwoofer said:

I don't get what ego has to do with this and how "wild" is the personality of someone with a potentially different opinion or needs than yours?

🙂 A Masterclass it is not and neither is there anything about Filmmaking as such with a capitol F.:)

56 minutes ago, PannySVHS said:

I´d rather buy a GX85 for 200USD and for the my smartphone needs a used Samsung 2017 or 2018 phone for 50USD. Saves me 1000USD for a used GH5 or a XT4 or if lucky a used S5. 🙂 A Masterclass it is not and neither is there anything about Filmmaking as such with a capitol F.:)

Hahah - the types of egos and personalities one comes across on this board are beyond wild.  

30 minutes ago, MrSMW said:

I think you can learn something from lot’s of different sources actually whether that be Hollywood grade colorist or more humble YouToober.

I learn stuff I implement into my work all the time from multi million dollar movies and from some guy who shot some shit in his back yard with a crew of himself and a budget of jack all.

The main thing is long as you are learning something…

This

Any thoughts on using this device for videography: 

https://youtu.be/DXe8Jj3dT38

So for low noise and high ISO shooting what’s the science in that?  Many are pushing the a7iv over a7siii/fx3 but the latter has dual iso at 12,800 vs 3200 - which seems more useful. Just slap on an ND and you’ll have more flexibility in lower lit situations without lighting on the a7siii over a7iv. 

2 hours ago, kye said:

Another thing that's fascinating, and completely invisible, is that the way that cameras are used between YT and professional sets is fundamentally and completely different.  

Ironically, the professional process where a camera is properly exposed and white-balanced makes everything really simple and straight-forward in post, not only being super easy to grade an enormous amount of content to look consistent and also amazing.  This is compared to the haphazard way that YT and other solo film-makers operate with WB and exposure all over the place, meaning so much extra work is required in post.

The first time I heard a professional colourist take me through their process was a revelation because it made the whole thing radically simple, and with a properly shot feature a colourist can set everything up properly and have everything just fall into place with only minor tweaks required.  One senior colourist mentioned that they like to have a viewing with the Director a few days after they have received the footage - this is when colour grading a feature with literally thousands of individual shots.  You simply cannot do that if things aren't done in a standardised and repeatable way.  Of course, that standard way also makes sure that each image is captured at the absolute sweet-spot of the camera/codec so not only are the results consistent but they're of the highest quality.

For each hour you spend watching YT videos on film-making, you're going to need to spend another two hours later on un-learning the complete crap that they've been feeding you.  

Yea that makes a ton of sense what you said earlier in.  However, if you’re going to be filming footage that isn’t properly lit and only using available light - then it would stand to reason that finding people who have tutorials on resolve that shoot similarly would be your best bet. A professional colourist may not be the best help for someone making videos with ambient light and grading on a MacBook with an a7s iii lol. 

1 hour ago, kye said:

YT isn't one thing.

It goes all the way from zero planning or budget to individual episodes that take literally months or years to make.

YT is exactly the same as Netflix or Prime or any other VOD website, it just has a different revenue model (advertising not exclusively membership).  The biggest YT channels have a higher budget than almost all larger budget TV shows.

The same people that watch Netflix and Prime watch YT - why would their preferences change?  They don't take their eyeballs out when they change browser tabs.

I'm talking about image quality.

I put a fast prime on my GH5 and go shoot at night and get perfectly usable shots when an iPhone can't even acquire focus - this is an actual example.  

People who love FF talk about it having a more graceful transition to the out-of-focus areas.  The out-of-focus areas on a smartphone look like they've been drawn onto the video with the blur tool by a toddler.  There is literally no comparison.  I own a camera because of its image quality, not because it can check the stock market prices.

I am skeptical about that claim but open. Do you have a reference? I’d did a quick check:

#1 MrBeast - 1DX mk2

#2 Jake Paul - a7s ii

#3 Markiplier - a7 iii

#4 Rhett and Link - maybe a6500 couldn’t find definitive 

#5 Unspeakable - newer Sony lines 

Other popular ones I could find are canon 70D, GoPro Hero 5 etc. 

Jenelle Elliana has over 2 million subscribers and uses her iPhone to film. 

I think that’s the point - people are making content watched by millions and making millions using low budget setups  

3 hours ago, kye said:

You're trying to simplify an equation well beyond the point that it creases to be useful.

Imagine we were talking about a Toyota Corolla.  If I said "will we get to a point that DRIVING with a 4WD like an SUV are not worth the cost of size and ease of a COROLLA when you're DRIVING" then it would be a stupid statement because driving isn't one thing.  Neither is "outputting to YouTube and sharing on social media".

Remember what I said in the other thread about cameras being a combination of dozens of different factors?  One you actually start making your own work you will begin to see what things matter / which things matter less / and which things don't matter at all to you.  Then you will realise that what matters to you is different than what matters to other people.  and I mean, IS RADICALLY DIFFERENT.  It's the source of most arguments online about gear actually - people not understanding that other people are not similar to them.

I suggest making more work and trying to talk about equipment less.

Smartphone cameras are still in the honeymoon phase.

People are concentrating on what they can do vs what they can't do.  The difference is still so woeful that proper comparisons aren't even being made yet.

I’m really saying that each tool has its place.  Cell phones have limitations and won’t be an A cam on a budgeted set but for YT? Why not? Most consumers/viewers probably wouldn’t notice or care if their YT channel shot with an iPhone 13 Pro or an Alexa MINI. That’s just my understanding when talking to friends who aren’t into videography or photography.