Jump to content

Sony A7S III


Recommended Posts

12 minutes ago, ajay said:

 

As far as any 10 bit 422 camera causing edit nightmares, my experience is different than yours. Z cam footage is easy to edit with Resolve. Works like a charm. I suspect Sony not to follow in Canon's footsteps. We shall see. I definitely want to test some footage.

 

ZCam are 4:2:0 10bit h265 afaik.... thus HW accelerated on NVIDIA 10xx and 20xx platform....

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 1.4k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

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.

These recent camera releases have resulted in a significant amount of velocity  and trolling right across the web.  Every camera is good these days. Every single one. Nor is a single one of them

Some tests and a review from Brandon Li. Chris  

Posted Images

34 minutes ago, ajay said:

For myself personally shooting wildlife, all I'm looking for is a camera that does 120p 4k reliably with good autofocus and good ergonomics. I've been using a Z Cam E2 and it's been a good fit but it's bulky and no autofocus.  The A7SIII with the Sony 200-600mm lens appears to be an excellent fit for me as long as I can shoot all day with it.

I could have easily gone back to my roots with Canon since I still own the 600mm f/4 lens, but three strikes and you are out:

  • Unreliable due to overheating in 4k 120p
  • Ridiculously large files/hard to edit
  • Footage reveals it is incredibly soft in 4k 120p

Now if Sony can avoid those three, I'll be more than happy with the A7SIII for what I do. It would have been nice to have a 20 MP sensor for stills, but I'll work around that by carrying two bodies with me at all times: A9 and A7SIII.

Actually large files (uncompressed) are a lot easier to edit. Its the compressed codecs with smaller files that are hard to edit as your computer needs to decompress them each time.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't do much editing but my editors have no problems with my FS7's high bitrate 10-bit 4:2:2 XAVC-I footage. I don't think they transcode either and most are on 15" MBPs.

By the way, FS7/FX9 still have really neat exclusive features (aside from all the I/Os, NDs etc) such as the Cine-EI modes & custom LUT support.

A7S3 is certainly looking to be a great B-cam for them. A7S2 & A73 weren't so great in that regard.

I wonder what weather sealing is looking like though.

Link to post
Share on other sites
23 minutes ago, zerocool22 said:

Actually large files (uncompressed) are a lot easier to edit. Its the compressed codecs with smaller files that are hard to edit as your computer needs to decompress them each time.

Although see my thread on Resolve and Canon format h265 10bit 4:2:2 All-I are way slower than IPB does not make any sense but I did try on 3 different PCs and is the same

Link to post
Share on other sites
12 minutes ago, elgabogomez said:

The 4:2:2 10 bit from the Panasonic s1h is easily editable in resolve studio and I have a Radeon rx580 with 8gb vram. It is not h265 (the 4k 60 is h265 4:2:0 and it’s harder on my pc)

4:2:2 10bit I think are h264 no? h265 are 4:2:0.... but I'm not 100% sure

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, wolf33d said:

That’s gonna be the same on any 10 bit 422 camera. That’s why Fuji went 420. Current PC hardware supports well h265 10bit 420 But not 422. So anything with this will be a nightmare to edit.

As for “incredibly soft 4k120p” we probably didn’t see the same footage.

Also, it’s already confirmed the 4K120 on the Sony will be limited by heat. 

I agree on the file size. One other thing to mention is 4K120p records audio on the Sony, no audio on the Canon. 

Not all 10bit is created equal......even among the 4:2:2 flavours.  I have no issues working with 10bit ProRes files or XAVC files from the FX9 and FS7 but the crap that comes out of the GH5 has given me grief in the past. 

57 minutes ago, TheBoogieKnight said:

I didn't actually realise the even the latest RTX cards don't support 4:2:2: 

That's purely for display purposes. You can still edit 4:2:2 on a machine with an RTX card just fine. GTX cards don't support it either and I edit 4:2:2 material often on a laptop with a GTX1660 card. If you need 10bit 4:2:2 output to a monitor, use a cheap Blackmagic Ultrastudio Mini monitor to get 10bit to your supported monitor. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, Yurolov said:

People know the 16 bit cant be captured, right?

https://www.newsshooter.com/2019/09/14/atomos-announce-16bit-raw-support-for-the-sony-fx9-prores-raw-update/

 

that one cost $3999.. ouch

Unless Atomos make a more portable one for A7SIII I dont think many ppl will use it at all, I think mostly it just there for a tick on the feature.

Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, ntblowz said:

Such a terrible 'solution' to record the 16bit RAW. You need the extension unit AND the Atomos recorder. 

Remember when you could record the 12bit RAW output of the FS700 just by using an Odyssey7Q. That camera with the 7Q was so far ahead of its time. You could record CinemaDNG or do a RAW to ProRes conversion (which looked fantastic!) at 4K60p or 2k 240p. You could even do 4K120p in burst mode using an end trigger. Had internal ND filter wheel........I still have mine and it holds it's own against most cameras today!

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, A_Urquhart said:

Such a terrible 'solution' to record the 16bit RAW. You need the extension unit AND the Atomos recorder. 

Pretty sure A7SIII dont need extension unit, that one is for FX9.

 

My old FS5 does the same too, paired with Odyssey7Q+ and it's still pretty relevant. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, ntblowz said:

Pretty sure A7SIII dont need extension unit, that one is for FX9.

 

My old FS5 does the same too, paired with Odyssey7Q+ and it's still pretty relevant. 

Yeah, I highly doubt you would need the extension unit for the A7SIII. That would make no sense at all. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, ajay said:

 

As far as any 10 bit 422 camera causing edit nightmares, my experience is different than yours. Z cam footage is easy to edit with Resolve. Works like a charm. I suspect Sony not to follow in Canon's footsteps. We shall see. I definitely want to test some footage.
 

You are wrong. Zcam is h265 10 bit 420, not 422. Other people posting here having no problem editing either speak about h264 10 bit 422 or h265 10 bit 420. 

10 bit 422 H265 IS NOT supported by ANY graphic card on the market today. 10 bit 420 and 10 bit 444 are, not 422. 
Sony has H265 10 bit 422 in the A7S and thus it will be hard to edit even on a $20K Mac Pro. 
Only the iPad work well for it. All Apple Sillicon upcoming computers will work well for that usage too. 

As I said days ago here on the forum, before the new video from Max, we are screwed for the moment with 10 bit 422 H265. It does not matter which camera you are using. Transcode or record externally are the only options which both suck hard. I have an iPad Pro on which I am typing this message, but I do not consider this an option for video editing. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Restore formatting

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


×
×
  • Create New...