Jump to content

A7S vs FS7 vs C300 - Skin Tones


jcs
 Share

Recommended Posts

 

The FS7 is impressive against the C300. The A7S also does well against the two much more expensive cameras. The cameras look to be very close in many shots- color differences can be matched with a little more work. In some shots, the FS7 with the F5(?) sensor has a richer, more pro look. 4K 10-bit 422 XAVC (internal) with up to 180fps and improved skin tones (for Sony) checks a lot of feature boxes for the FS7. Compare the $8000 (new) FS7 to the ~$7000 (used) 1DC. The 1DC has a very filmic look (1.3 crop)- perhaps the FS7 with a SpeedBooster (1.1 crop, +$600) will compete well. Gotta thank Canon for setting the bar so high- Sony's catching up.

If the FS7 holds compelling skin tones through various lighting conditions, Canon's advantage is minimized to lenses (Canon lenses on Sony bodies can't autofocus, for example (MB autofocus is slow and unreliable)). Looking forward to seeing a test against the FS700 to see just how far Sony has come with skin tones (I only use the FS700 for 120-240fps slomo at this point).

I'm getting close to matching the A7S with 5D3 RAW for skin tones under tungsten light. 5D3 RAW IMO produces better skin tones than the C300 (to be fair, I've never used the C300- only comparing video online). In the test above, the A7S does pretty well against the C300 and FS7 for skin tones. As in the video, I've also had good luck with A7S PP4 (tweaked) for skin tones.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hitfabryk- in my tests PP4 works best in lower light conditions (as does PP3), PP5-7 in brighter light conditions. In their examples, IMO the A7S looks best in a few cases: color & noise.

toxotis70- I found this test via a search. Here's the full info: http://www.keyframe.tv/wp/2014/sony-fs7-alpha7s-and-canon-c300-color-science-comparison-part-1/http://www.keyframe.tv/wp/2014/sony-fs7-alpha7s-canon-c300-color-science-comparison-part-2/

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

dhessel created a matrix that might work: http://www.eoshd.com/comments/topic/7145-grading-s-log2s-gamut-in-adobe/. I didn't try it as I don't use sgamut (haven't seen a clear reason why it should be used over other color modes). If I were to use it, I'd find a way to use it in Speedgrade or Resolve so a LUT could be used otherwise in PPRo it won't be hardware accelerated.

PP7/Slog2 gamma with Pro or Cinema color modes and added saturation can work well. In other words, get the color to look as good as possible in-camera using the Slog2 curve: better results (so far) and less surprises in post. Here's Kholi's example (the biggest change is using Pro color mode with saturation +8): http://www.dvxuser.com/V6/showthread.php?326049-A7S-PicPro-Settings

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Compare the $8000 (new) FS7 to the ~$7000 (used) 1DC. The 1DC has a very filmic look (1.3 crop)- perhaps the FS7 with a SpeedBooster (1.1 crop, +$600) will compete well. Gotta thank Canon for setting the bar so high- Sony's catching up.

Does filmic just mean shallow DOF now? Why is a cinema sized sensor (the same as Alexa and Red) less 'filmic' than a traditional stills camera sensor size?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Filmic: shallow DOF is helpful to blur the background- easier to do with larger sensor. For example, I have to use an F.95 lens the GH4 (2-2.3x crop) to do about the same as an F2 lens on full frame. Filmic also relates to how highlights look when they approach clipping (and clipping itself). Once clipped, there's no way to fix in post. Shadows are typically of concern for noise, and tend to get tweaked in post for the filmic touch (making shadows slightly teal, green, red, etc., for the desired emotional effect). ARRI desaturates color as it approaches clipping, here's an example showing how to do this with the F55 in Resolve (using the lum vs sat curve): http://www.dvinfo.net/article/post/making-the-sony-f55-look-filmic-with-resolve-9.html. Any camera that does this in-camera means a more filmic look (and less work in post). Filmic also means absolutely no digital artifacts with a pleasing organic looking noise pattern. Too sharp is also less filmic (fixed in post or with lens filters).

No noise with 8-bits is a problem due to banding (something I see from time to time with the A7S). This can meaning using a higher ISO to increase noise and reduce banding before compression (banding can be reduced in post using added noise/dither, but never as good when done before compression). Film has a rather unusual color response- doesn't really look 'real' (more so older stocks); it's off a bit and that's a good thing- helps create the 'unreality'. A very big part of the filmic look (perhaps most important) is filmic/cinematic lighting. In simplest terms, it means light only where it's needed, and using darker scenes with controlled light on face/eyes goes a long way. Even outdoor sunlit shots never have super-high specular reflections- nothing is super bright. Cameras which spread out highlights smoothly tend to look more filmic (ARRI, Canon to an extent). This can be helped with lighting and makeup (and in post).

Link to comment
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.

 Share

×
×
  • Create New...