Santoso

Here's the XLR-K3M running 4 channels into the A7SIII.  This way you inject 24bit/48khz digital signals straight into the media file and have dials and switches of control.  In the A7SIII screen shot you can see the 4 channels levels on the bottom left with a peak marker.  Once the XLR-K3M is plugged in, you can no longer control levels in the camera, it is all controlled on the outside dials of the XLR-K3M.
My typical setup and what I used in this example is a boomed MKH-416 on Channel 1, the XLR mic that came with the XLR-K3M as the on-camera mic (or could be a second boomed mic) as Channel 2, and 2 RODE Wireless Go setups using a splitter that runs one of the lav setups as the left channel (Channel 3) and the other as the right channel (Channel 4).
I verified that I can take the MP4 from the A7SIII with these 4 audio channels into Premiere and see each of the 4 channels and can control each one separately.  For me this is HUGE, because you are basically looking at the FX9 I could not afford (or justify this year) and I needed 4 channels of audio preferably not external, for doing in studio or on location interviews. 

I have consistently failed to make my own footage as good as I was hoping for, so have decided to try my hand at grading the best footage available, the sample shots from the manufacturers themselves.
I've done this in the past but got sidetracked, but am now back on it.  I figure that until I can make ARRI or RED footage look good, there's no point criticising my own footage - maybe the footage is fine and it's my grading skills that are solely to blame.
My previous attempts, however short, made me realise a few things:
flat ungraded footage from any camera looks dull there was a lot more noise in the RED and ARRI footage than I was expecting - ie, A LOT more Overall, the biggest surprise was how average the footage looked.  Since then I've learned a bunch and hopefully will have more success.
Anyone want to join me?
Arri footage is here: https://www.arri.com/en/learn-help/learn-help-camera-system/camera-sample-footage
RED footage is here: https://www.red.com/sample-r3d-files
Komodo footage from Seth Dunlap is here: https://www.dropbox.com/sh/cfxdizrgt3aa4ml/AADPxF6XZIs2_uB7Xt_piHUya?dl=0
BM UMP 12K footage is here (underneath the "Generation 5 colour science" heading): https://www.blackmagicdesign.com/products/blackmagicursaminipro
BM Pocket camera footage is here: https://www.blackmagicdesign.com/products/blackmagicpocketcinemacamera/gallery
Sony Venice frames here: http://www.xdcam-user.com/tag/footage/ but I couldn't find any official footage for download
I've downloaded footage from https://raw.film before too, so that might be worth checking out.
As a reality check, I'm also pulling in the ML footage I've shot back when I was playing with it on my Canon 700D, and also the test shots I've been shooting with the BM Micro Cinema Camera.
I suspect that the footage I shoot is much better than I think, and that I'm much worse at colour grading than I think.
If anyone is interested in joining me that would be fun, and if there are other places to download well shot sample footage that would also be very interesting.

"Solved" or not, this is utterly ridiculous and no one should reward Canon with their business even if these cameras are your ideal tool. 
Please, reward honest and ethical companies with your business. It is the only way things will get better for all of us. 

After this firmware update, we've got a good indicator that Canon is not going to open this camera up for any serious video work. It's really meant for casual video work in which a hybrid shooter may want to get a few nice video clips.
From a video perspective, there's no way would I use this camera for any serious, professional work.
I've 100% made up my mind to stick with Sony for what I do. I thought I might go back to Canon and use the R5 for both my stills and video work but I've seen enough from Canon to know that they have not changed their tune.
So...A9 for stills, A7SIII for video. Onwards!

Wow amazing, another 5 whopping minutes. Im ordering one right now...
So I guess Canon will do nothing about the problem. So its up to some smart users to fix it or give a workable workaround....
Sad day for camera tech.

Some tests and a review from Brandon Li.
Chris
 

Hold on a minute and listen.
We do not have a monster at all.
It remains crippled. And in dire need of a firmware update.
The actually reliable video modes are line skipped mush.
But most of all think about your principals. It pisses me off to be honest when a company has been shown to cheat their customers, but then the customer just goes "ah what the heck" and rewards them anyway to the tune of 4 grand.
If you really feel strongly about the fact that Canon have lied, or have even been "tricky bastards" - why would you then rush out to reward them for that with $4000 on a new camera?

Here is a similar technique that I loosely described above.
For example the below picture profile settings, came from Paul over at "extrashot", he used similar techniques to arrive at these settings for the A7 mark III to get as close to the FX9's s.Cinetone as possible (limited of course due to the 4:2:0 8bit nature of the a7iii's sensor, but close enough for government work, lol):
**A7 Mark III Picture Profile settings to simulate FX9 and s.Cinetone:
Black Level: -10
Gamma: Cine2
Black Gamma: Range Middle, Level -7
Knee: Mode Manual, 100%, Slope 0
Colour Mode: Still
Saturation 0
Color Phase: -1
Colour Depth:
R: +2
G; +1
B: -1
C : 0
M: +1
Y: 0
Detail: Level -7
**to get as close as possible, A7iii is 8bit camera, soooo, not gonna be perfect 😉
If Paul doesn't beat me to it, I will share the settings I come up with color matching the A7Siii with an FX9's  s.Cinetone (I signed up for prioritized shipping from Sony PRO support and had my pre-order confirmation email in hand within the first 10 secs of 10am on 7/28, so I should be one of the first with a production model).
Changes are Paul will beat me to the punch, since he owns an FX9, and I will have to arrange to borrough one.  He uses almost the same exact technique as me, so his results would be pretty much identical.  We both try to do it as scientifical as possible, which is why our results comes out almost the same (but there is still a "gray" area when doing the picture profile adjustments, which is very touchy)

More SOOC footage at 50/100p from the "No Limits" launch video by Jacques Crafford. 
https://drive.google.com/drive/folders/1kYjaH84X9871d8-Rmuj9DOXfmtAH6V6i?fbclid=IwAR3LPZ7njD6UadrWtejYeGQHq5hfTCNOKXBrdliOZ4w4cvrja5IrzGgRnhY

This is the nonsense I see on DpReview.  Apparently the camera is excused for not working reliably as its not a Professional video camera.  So why does it have 8K RAW, or 120fps 4K then?  Why provide such top video features only to cripple them?  And why is it so wrong to wish that they work as the customer requires, especially if you're paying over £4k for it.  I have video and photo functions on my phone.  Its neither a dedicated video or photo camera, yet I still expect these functions to work reliably.  Basic stuff.  How well would a phone do, if it advertised a limit on say web browsing.  You get 15 mins then it overheats and you'll have to switch off for a few hours before you can browse again.  It would be laughed at.
Canons description of the overheating limits is half a story.  There are some crucial inconsistencies their figures don't address.  Canon offered us a hybrid camera and advertised it as such.  The S1H is also a hybrid and not a true cinema camera; yet is far more reliable shooting HQ video.  Compare the R5 to that and not cinema cameras and you'll see what some of us were actually hoping for.

The A7S3 has lots to like but I'm not sure if I'll be upgrading just yet.  Personally I'm hoping we get a 24MP A74 that does 4K 60 (with 6K downsampling for more sharpness) and allows for the 1.5x APSC crop at full 4K.  I use that APSC punch-in a lot on my A9 and would easily give up 120fps for it (60fps is still 2.5x slow-mo at 24fps playback which is pretty good for most purposes).
Kind of bummed the color is not sorted yet.. but maybe EOS HD Pro Color can improve things.

You could literally post a frame from R5 or Arri Alexa, say it's a Sony A7siii frame and someone would say the color isnt that good and that something is wrong with the skin tones.

Brand preference plays a part.  However I feel expectations are raised not to excessive levels, but merely the hope that a hybrid camera could be released that wasn't flawed in a significant way. 
The S1H is a superb camera, undermined by poor AF, a complaint you couldn't make against the R5 and R6, which is undermined by overheating, something the S1H doesn't suffer from.  The A7sIII overheats also, and its photo function is limited to 12MP, which is a put off to some.  Plus its IBIS is inferior to Canon and probably Panasonic, and its colour science isn't to everyone's liking.
Somewhere between all these cameras is an excellent tool for all of us.  It is frustrating to see cameras so close to getting it right, yet due to the decisions made in the design, to miss the mark ever so slightly.
Can these cameras all be used.  Of course they can.  There are already videos shot by the R5 despite the overheating.  However any cameras shortcomings will be a deterant to some, who had hoped to add that camera to their equipment.  Dissapointment drives some complaints here and sounding off on forums like these doesn't mean we are not going out and filming, or learning new things.  Gear discussion is always going to be a part of our craft.  They maybe just tools, but the specs of those tools will either aid or hinder our work.  
My Pocket 4K would be much more useful with a great AF, a screen I could see outside and better battery life.  How is that not important to my shooting.  Discussions about these limits not only inform new buyers but also can lead to workarounds.  Even if there is ultimately a lot of nonsense posts in between.

This is awesome! Exactly the affordable product/solution I’ve been waiting for. I’ll admit that I love my Sonys, but Blackmagic is the leader of innovation right now. 

So, with all this talk about 8k RAW, it's got me thinking, and I'm contemplating going back to 1080p.
I've been thinking about all these cameras with high resolutions and ferocious data rates, and why they don't implement higher bitrates and bit-depths on the lower resolution modes.  
Noam Kroll just shot a low budget feature in 2K Prores HQ on his Alexa Classic.  In 4:3 no less!  https://noamkroll.com/playing-against-filmmaking-trends-on-our-feature-with-arri-alexa-classic-2k-prores-hq-43-aspect-ratio/
His pipeline was RAW -> Prores HQ -> storage.  Prores HQ in 1080 is around 176Mbps, is All-I, and is 10-bit.  It sounds lovely.  Uncompressed 1080 10-bit is a whopping 1490Mbps, so the 176Mbps of HQ is quite a saving of data rates.  
But what do I actually want?
So I made a list:
I want more bit-depth than 10-bit
10-bit is fine if you're on a controlled set or have time to get your WB broadly right in camera, but for some of the horrendous situations I find myself in, having more bit-depth would help (remember how with RAW you can WB in post - well, bit depth is what enables that) I want high bit-rates for a good quality image
A good quality image means that every portion of the screen gets a decent amount of data, so this is about bit-rate.  It's not about resolution, because a 100Mbps 4K file will still have half the data available for each square cm of the screen than a 200Mbps 1080 file I want files that are easy to edit in post
It doesn't matter if my 8K smartphone files are only 100Mbps, the computer still has to decode, process, display, and encode 16 times as many pixels as 1080 So, do I want 1080p RAW?
Yes, and no.  RAW has great bit-depth, much larger bit-rates than I care for, but also isn't the best that 1080 can get because it is lower resolution after debayering.  Do I want 2.5K RAW?  Maybe.  Problem is that RAW and IBIS are very rarely found together.  What I really want is some kind of compressed, but not too compressed, intermediary file.  
What I really want is 1080 Prores 4444 (which is 264Mbps) or Prores 4444 XQ (which is 396Mbps), because these are 12-bit.  12-bit would do me very nicely.
So, what do we get from the manufacturers?  We get ridiculous bitrates on the higher resolutions, and paltry token efforts on the lower ones.  My XC10 is a classic case - 305Mbps 4K but 35Mbps 1080p.  The 4K has 2.5 times the amount of data per pixel than the 1080p, and 10 times the amount of data per square cm of screen.
But I have a GH5, which is one of the exceptions, as Panasonic went for the jugular on the lower resolution modes as well as the higher ones, and so I'm down to the three "best" modes that will work on a UHS-I SD card:
5K 4:3 200Mbps Long-GOP h265 4K 16:9 150Mbps Long-GOP h264 1080p 16:9 200Mbps All-I h264 So I shot a test.  That test showed me that the 5K mode is far superior, even on a 1080p timeline, but uploaded to YT is a different story.  Considering I have partnered with YT for distribution share my videos on YT, that's what my friends and family end up seeing.
This lead me to the question about what is actually visible after it's been minced by YT?
Luckily I had done a previous test where I took an 8K RAW file, and rendered out various resolution Prores HQ intermediaries, then exported each of them from a 4K timeline.  That video is here:
So, I downloaded the above video in 4K, 2K, and 1080p resolutions, took screen grabs, and put them side-by-side for comparison.  Here they are - you're welcome.



So, what can I see in these images?
The 4K download is better than the 2K, which is better than the 1080p.  This is hardly news, each of these is more than double the bit-rate of the next one and they're all using the same compression algorithm, that's how mathematics works. Watching in 4K each lower resolution is subtly worse than the previous, except for 1.2k (720p) which is way worse.  That's to be expected, 2k - 1.2k is a bigger percentage drop than the other resolutions.  However, things don't get "bad" until in the 2.5k - 1.2k range, depending on your tolerance for IQ. Moving to the other extreme, watching in 1080 they are all very similar, except for the 1.2k version, which is interesting. Some of these grabs also have a lower resolution one looking better than the higher one next to it.  That's not an accident on my part (I checked), it really is like that.  As the original video has the resolutions all in sequence in the one video, I suspect that the frame I chose was differing distances from the previous keyframe in the stream, so that will introduce some variation. So, what does this mean?
Well, firstly, no point shooting in 8K RAW if your viewers are watching in 1080p on YT.  I doubt that's news to anyone, but maybe it is to some R5 pre-orders lol.
More importantly, if your audience is watching in 1080 then they're not going to notice if you used 2K intermediaries or 3.2k ones.
How can we apply this to our situations?
This is more complex.  In this pipeline we had 8K RAW -> X Prores -> timeline.  This meant that the Prores was by far the weakest link, and Prores HQ is pretty high-bitrate compared to most consumer formats.  1080 Prores HQ is 176Mbps, but UHD Prores HQ is 707Mbps.  I don't know of any cameras that shoot h264 in anything even approaching those data rates for those resolutions, so good luck with that.  
If you're shooting 4K 100Mbps h264 then that's the same bitrate per square pixel of screen as 1.4K Prores HQ, which is pretty darn close to that 1.2k that looks awful in all the above.  
Obviously if your viewers are watching in 4K then it's worth shooting in the highest bit-rate you can find.
What does this mean for me?  Not sure yet, I need to do more tests on the GH5 modes, and I need to think more about things like tracking and stabilisation which can use extra resolution in the edit.
But I won't rule out going back to 1080p.

The previous one couldnt even do 1080 100fps without a heavy crop. This one is doing 120fps at 4k with only slight crop. Plus it has AF, fully articulating screen and 10bit h265..... Some people are hard to please 😅