Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
Andrew Reid

Sony A7S 120fps slow-mo at ISO 12,800

Recommended Posts

General life advice: if you join a community, start by insulting all the members by calling them fanboys/lier followers, you'll probably get banned. 

It's as if people don't comprehend the basics of proper manner anymore. And certainly don't comprehend the difference between insult and criticism.

Most of us criticize Andrew's (and eachother's) work all the time (including myself, saying once his short is terrible and includes everything I hate about film), do we get banned? No. Because we criticize properly, which is say what we don't like, and what should be done to improve the work, not order eachother to stop making films. 

______

Providing incorrect information everytime you open your mouth doesn't help either. 

People come here to gather quality knowledge, correct information, and spend a good time in a nice, friendly atmosphere where they can discuss their passion about filmmaking. Members like these providing wrong information decrease the quality of the forum, and result in readers walking away from EOSHD with polluted information and a load of utter nonsense. 

 

Well, Ebrahim, Thank you for your general life advice, although it felt patronising in parts. but that's fine!

 

A Community is exactly what Andrew has created. I have followed him and enjoyed his reviews since the beginning of his blog. I have also enjoyed some of his shorts and purchased two of his books.

 

I will not denied that Andrew has done a great job. But what I will not accept, is for people to be banned for emitting their opinion on his short film. I don't think they were insulting at all, clumsy at best. I even sensed, taking into account Andrew extensive knowledge, that they were probably expecting something more meaty from him, and that I believe is their right. 

 

Some directors, that I hold in high regards, have produced some poor films. I glad they didn't ban me from watching the rest of their body of work.

 

Andrew's action were extreme. We should all learn one pure truth. you cannot please everyone and that's that. Now let's accept it and move on, because the subject of acceptance is wild and wide, and unfortunately only too few really care or respect it.

 

Sorry If offended anyone, but that did make me upset

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
EOSHD Pro Color for Sony cameras EOSHD Pro LOG for Sony CamerasEOSHD C-LOG and Film Profiles for All Canon DSLRs

PS - The users "Nog" and "Baltic" have been removed from the forum, because the accounts appear to have been setup with the sole intention to cause trouble.

 

As these user names seemed familiar to me, and I felt I had seen useful and helpful post from these guys in the past I decided to see what kind of trouble the were causing.

 

Of baltic's 8 posts I would consider 7 o them to be helpful normal discussions, this being the only exception.

 

Im sure all eoshd fanboys will speak highly about it, but what the heck, they are fanboys after all.

 

You are very interesting when it come to theory, analyzing pros and cons of equipment but in practice world you should stop making videos like this...

 

And of Nog's 13 posts I didn't find any that were looking to cause trouble, the were all offering opinions, help, or information. This was by far his most troublesome post.

 

 

wow - not a fan of that look.

 

Baltic's fanboy comment was out of line and I don't agree with telling someone what kind of videos they should make, but is that single post ban worthy? As for Nog, unless you removed all of his troublesome posts so I was not able to find them he absolutely didn't deserve getting banned for that statement. Do you really feel that is trouble making?

 

I am a huge fan of your site and the work that you do, I check in here almost daily since it is one of the best sources for information on anamorphics which is a large interest of mine. But I have to say that banning these individuals, especially Nog in this way is more damaging for the community than anything they did. Am I missing something here?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Watched the video and thought to myself, love the creativity but quality doesn't do the camera any justice at all.

 

Why are you pixel peeping 720p at 120fps, ISO 12,800?

 

You know full well that the ultimate quality from this camera is 4K out of the HDMI, or even 1080p full frame mode at 24p.

 

This was only to demonstrate the creative potential / effect of slow-mo at very high ISOs.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

bring them back please!!!! :angry:

Cheers mate! :)

 

With all due respect you do not have the full knowledge to make the decisions. You are judging this at surface value. If you want all future conversation on this forum to be drowned out 10-1 by rudeness and trolling, then sure I'll let the people who join only for this reason get away with it!

 

It isn't about having different opinions. It is really very simply about being polite in the way they are expressed.

 

Also having a proper track record of constructive posts from the start helps people integrate with the community properly. Those who fall well short of this basic standard at the first hurdle are not welcome here. It is no different to a real life community or a room full of people in a bar.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I liked the creativity of the video but do not like the a7s or gh4 in slow-motion at all whatsoever and do not find that they have been able to be cut with regular 24/30 footage...it has nothing to do with Andrew...scour vimeo and youtube to see what I mean.

 

I'd give a leg up in pure aesthetics to a7s though it seems functionality of gh4 is probably better for most...I may just keep 5d3 and use raw since I don't have clients and use it for personal use...if I need to get a quicker turn around I would surely invest in the a7s as I find its aesthetics better than gh4...

 

Good video.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I liked the creativity of the video but do not like the a7s or gh4 in slow-motion at all whatsoever and do not find that they have been able to be cut with regular 24/30 footage...it has nothing to do with Andrew...scour vimeo and youtube to see what I mean.

 

I'd give a leg up in pure aesthetics to a7s though it seems functionality of gh4 is probably better for most...I may just keep 5d3 and use raw since I don't have clients and use it for personal use...if I need to get a quicker turn around I would surely invest in the a7s as I find its aesthetics better than gh4...

 

Good video.

I agree.  None of the slow-mo is particularly sharp from these cameras.  I think some people missed the point.  Andrew was showing what could be done creatively given the slow-mo resolution limitations with a "dreamy" ambience, while simultaneously utilizing the low light capabilities of the a7S to create some cool lighting effects.

 

Michael

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes, I think the critical takeaway from that video is "Don't shoot at high ISOs in slo-mo. It looks terrible."

 

That's funny, I thought the takeaway was "don't try to make cool experimental imagery if your audience consists of pedantic internet pixel peepers".

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

That's funny, I thought the takeaway was "don't try to make cool experimental imagery if your audience consists of pedantic internet pixel peepers".

Nice attempt at summary dismissal, but that's a straw-man argument I never made. I simply noted that the clip "looks" bad. To elaborate, I found the clip visually fuzzy, murky, unpleasantly underlit, and filled with electronic noise that does not look like film grain. I'm not commenting on the subject matter, mood, or anything about its "experimental" nature. I wouldn't even classify it as "experimental"--it's a straightforward montage of the sort you see all the time in camera tests on the Interwebs.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Nice attempt at summary dismissal, but that's a straw-man argument I never made. I simply noted that the clip "looks" bad. To elaborate, I found the clip visually fuzzy, murky, unpleasantly underlit, and filled with electronic noise that does not look like film grain. I'm not commenting on the subject matter, mood, or anything about its "experimental" nature. I wouldn't even classify it as "experimental"--it's a straightforward montage of the sort you see all the time in camera tests on the Interwebs.  

 

Ok but it's 120fps at 12000 ISO. The look is dreamy and glowy. My cameras can't do that. I for one am excited by the possibilities here, but to each his own I guess.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't think those ISOs in S-LOG are comparable. You can't say ISO 12800 with S-LOG and compare it to 12800 from a 5dmarkIII/any other cameras because S-LOG is measured differently. "Native" S-LOG on the FS700 is also somewhere around ISO 3200 and it compares pretty closely to ISO 800 (which is gain 0 on the FS700).

 

Should we have a new standard because comparing like this is almost useless?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Am I missing something here?

 

Yes. The point. 

 

 

Nice attempt at summary dismissal, but that's a straw-man argument I never made. I simply noted that the clip "looks" bad. To elaborate, I found the clip visually fuzzy, murky, unpleasantly underlit, and filled with electronic noise that does not look like film grain. I'm not commenting on the subject matter, mood, or anything about its "experimental" nature. 

 

Oh bollocks. Let's be honest to ourselves, shall we. It may be un-PC, but racer5's short analysis was spot on. It wasn't about you. Judging by this and several other topics here and elsewhere, many people don't seem to see the forest from the trees, even if it slapped them on the face. Let's not become hardcore "PIPP's," peeps. Let's enjoy the provided content for what it is, at least once in a while. 

 

I think the weird little clip did illustrate (pardon the pun) a point, and it was somehow inspiring, too. I see no point in obsessing about the obvious and gloating over the irrelevant. Or being jealous about something I don't have. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Judging by this and several other topics here and elsewhere, many people don't seem to see the forest from the trees, even if it slapped them on the face. Let's not become hardcore "PIPP's," peeps. Let's enjoy the provided content for what it is, at least once in a while.

 

I 100% agree.

 

And it is a shame the balance of the forum seems to be tipping in this direction.

 

I might have to start introducing sub sections for idiots and other sections for non-idiots :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Remember film guys, do you.  You just shot things underexposed and it still looked great.  Remember how all the colours and exposure smoothly bled into each other when you shot 5217.  Blacks were blacks, whites were not overexposed but just a part of the image.  

 

Point being, people complain because digital still don't do it right!  I downloaded the original file, and I just won't be buying any camera.  To my eye, I could get these results with GH2 at a lower ISO and by adding more light.  Sure, there would be more banding and noise, but when it is at this level I find it distracting and why not add more of it.  If you want to know what irks me most about the image, it's the undulating banding on her finger tips, possibly from the light of a flame swaying in the faintest breeze.  Sure, it's great to capture this detail, but the codec just kinda hands it back to us in a distracting way.  

 

Some of the later shots look great.  They remind me of something from the 70s, maybe Altman using pre-flashed film.  This is the real crime, that some results make me forget it's digital, and then other shots make me wonder if it is an i-phone?  This is the newest challenge to being a DP, so many different cameras and each with their niche.  I think this camera has a vast potential for some projects, but you need to know that limit.  It's scary now getting called in for a job and they say they are using yadda yadda whatever camera and you haven't used it and you don't really know the limits.  You know of course, 8 or 10 bit, what codec, the workflow, but you can't say for sure how she'll ride.  If it's a real job they let you take her out and play, but most jobs aren't this professional and the whole shoot will put you in the hot seat.  

 

Some people have commented that this is a better demo video for the camera.  This is true, I am sick of landscape camera tests.  How many times are we working for any kind of job and the shot came down to a landscape and the dynamic range.  I don't think hardly any audience anywhere gave a flip about the dynamic range in the films landscape shot.  What, maybe the shot in NO Country for Old Men needed that range for artistic flare, but seriously, most videos I shoot it's about the actors face or clarity of image during events.  Test videos need to shoot real light situations (including what you would pull from your grip truck) and people's faces.  PEOPLE!!!  Cameras do more than landscapes and if you are going to buy a camera, that's why you need to pick the most flexible one. 

Share this post


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.

Sign in to follow this  

×
×
  • Create New...