Jump to content
utsira

Sony has gone internal-4K crazy: A7RII, RX1004, RX10II

Recommended Posts

​But what lens stabilization or in camera stabilization are you comparing to that allows you to get smooth video while walking downs stairs?I know of no such lens or camera.

​I get his point though. I'd find that 'walking down the stairs' passage better with none of that IBIS that is shown there, horrible jello-effect.

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

​I get his point though. I'd find that 'walking down the stairs' passage better with none of that IBIS that is shown there, horrible jello-effect.

​So you turn the IBIS of, simple.

And again, what camera in the world doesn't get jello in that example besides a non stabilized camera with global shutter? :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I've used my friend's A7ii and the inbuilt IBIS seems awesome to me. As long as you aren't doing huge pans or anything it seems great. It's so liberating just being able to walk around with any lens attached and getting some stabilisation without a tripod or rig. I guess if it's a professional job then maybe it's a different story but I think it's wonderful that Sony are going down this path. They'll get better and better at it to with each camera.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

​So you turn the IBIS of, simple.

And again, what camera in the world doesn't get jello in that example besides a non stabilized camera with global shutter? :)

​True, you just turn it off. I just think a lot of people, me included, thought of it as something pretty revolutionary. I'd never actually seen the results before and so this kind of puts my expectations in order. I'd still love it to be in the next A7s.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

With the first EM-5, you could put an 85mm manual lens on (170mm full frame equivalent), shoot handheld with no rig whatsoever, and not only would all jitters be removed, if you stood very still, the shot could even look as if it is locked off on a tripod. That's pretty amazing. Movement is a lot more tricky, and definitely requires practice and experimentation. ie a horizontal pan, the IBIS will lag/overshoot the beginning and end of the movement, so you're probably best off turning off lateral stabilisation. 

Lens OS varies by manufacturer (by lens even?) I find the stabilisation in the Panasonic 14-45 kit lens to be great, more than enough to make handheld look like "handheld" (ie tiny camera literally held in the hands look like heavy shoulder-mounted camera). Sony OS has disappointed me though (SE35 1.8), I see warping.

I love IBIS, because it means you have consistent (and therefore predictable) stabilisation across all your lenses. It can make a handheld 170mm equiv shot look locked off.

No OS or IBIS is going to be a substitute for a gimbal though. Also, I think it's hard to judge from a video, unless the uploader has also described their working method for the shot/ test, because you don't know how much they're waving the camera around, how shaky their hands are and so on. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

​But what lens stabilization or in camera stabilization are you comparing to that allows you to get smooth video while walking downs stairs?I know of no such lens or camera.

​Any stabilizer benefits from good technique. I've managed some fairly smooth shots down stairs with a Mega OIS lens. 

I don't mind a little organic hand shake in my handheld shots. In fact, I prefer my handheld shots to look a little handheld. What I mind is that crazy sickening warping effect. I would axe the shot completely if I saw that at rushes. 

​So you turn the IBIS of, simple.

​Which is sort of a solution, but that doesn't help reduce micro-jitters. To me, the appeal of lens IS is that it makes handheld shots from tiny cameras look like handheld shots from proper cameras. It's still not a replacement for a steadicam or gimbal, although it can replace a tripod sometimes with a little Warp Stabilizer/Lock and Load.

I've used my friend's A7ii and the inbuilt IBIS seems awesome to me. As long as you aren't doing huge pans or anything it seems great. It's so liberating just being able to walk around with any lens attached and getting some stabilisation without a tripod or rig. I guess if it's a professional job then maybe it's a different story but I think it's wonderful that Sony are going down this path. They'll get better and better at it to with each camera.

​They probably will! I'll be gawking over those tests right next to you. :) 

Movement is a lot more tricky, and definitely requires practice and experimentation. ie a horizontal pan, the IBIS will lag/overshoot the beginning and end of the movement, so you're probably best off turning off lateral stabilisation. 

​Interesting. Maybe that's why I haven't seen this problem with the E-M10 or E-PL7 (they only use 3-axis stabilization). Is it possible to turn off lateral stabilization on Sony cams as well?

Lens OS varies by manufacturer (by lens even?) I find the stabilisation in the Panasonic 14-45 kit lens to be great, more than enough to make handheld look like "handheld" (ie tiny camera literally held in the hands look like heavy shoulder-mounted camera). Sony OS has disappointed me though (SE35 1.8), I see warping.

​Totally agree. My 14-45 has given me consistently amazing results. I've heard people complain about the new Power OIS, but my Mega OIS lenses seem to have the magic.

That's disappointing about the Sony OSS. Can you elaborate on your experience with it? The new A7 cams can combine the internal stabilization with OSS lenses--I'm very curious how that'll look.

You do know that the IBIS that is in the A7Rii is a revised/updated version of the one that is in the A7ii? It is not the same.

​I actually didn't realize. Thank you for clarifying! I'm guessing it will be less jerky than the A7 II, but we'll have to wait and see. Hopefully no plane shifting/parallax problems. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Imo Global Shutter is the key. Then you can move the camera freely and it all looks good instead of weird. 

No need for IS or IBIS. 

I will never buy an A-cam without it again. Took me one day with the bmpc to make that decision :)

​I'm with you there. Global shutter all the way, or at least fast enough rolling shutter as makes no difference.

Then you just need enough mass or a steady enough rig to smooth out micro-jitters. A little shake looks organic and nice, but too much can be distracting.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I thought the new 50mp Canon 5D were awesome, then Sony came up with these models..

Damn, I feel bad for the people who spent all there money on the new Canon 5D.

I mean the Canon ones are not bad at all, but If you look at the price you pay for them.. Then I would choose for the Sony A7rII :D

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites


That's disappointing about the Sony OSS. Can you elaborate on your experience with it?  

​I got the lens name wrong, it's the SEL35 1.8 that I meant (ie the APS-C one). Don't think they have OSS on their full frame 35s. I can't really describe the effect I see that well, other than it's a kind of warping, not dissimilar to what you sometimes see with IBIS. I should probably test some more though. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

IBIS and In Lens Stabilisation are not for cinematic film making.  they always exhibit a camcorder look - ALWAYS!.  For stills it's great, but for video, if you can;t hold a camera steady you need to rework your handling technique.  Add weight to your camera and build up your guns.  

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

IBIS and In Lens Stabilisation are not for cinematic film making.  they always exhibit a camcorder look - ALWAYS!.  For stills it's great, but for video, if you can;t hold a camera steady you need to rework your handling technique.  Add weight to your camera and build up your guns.  

 

Me personally I don't like IS or IBIS. Nor do I like gimbals or steady cams unless they serve a purpose. 

But I'm pretty sure what you just said is only one man's opinion. And if you truly want to be creative filmmaker it's not wise to lock your self in with restraining rules like that. 

​My tip is, have an open mind and use what's good for the project.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Me personally I don't like IS or IBIS. Nor do I like gimbals or steady cams unless they serve a purpose. 

But I'm pretty sure what you just said is only one man's opinion. And if you truly want to be creative filmmaker it's not wise to lock your self in with restraining rules like that. 

​My tip is, have an open mind and use what's good for the project.

​I agree.  But for the purpose of this discussion, I felt it's a point worth making.  I get the impression most seem to think IBIS is the answer to lack of equioment and/or skills.  Big sensors are associated with big productions.  The look gives a feeling of heavy cameras and equipment that require heavy grip and skills in operating such equipment.  Since we have over 50 years of film making history to look back on, it's carved a consensus and an association.  You watch big budget westerns and you can see the weight of the equipment in the movement (and/or lack of movement in the camera work).  

 

I felt Chris Nolan's decision to hand hold the IMAX cameras when shooting Interstellar ultimately went towards undermining the look of imax.  The shots were clearly required for the film, but the look could have been achieved with a smaller camera.  The look of IMAX is not just the frame, but the huge film mags, huge cranes, etc that are usually part of the parcel.

  It's the same type of thing with people who have been sitting waiting for the a7smk2 in the hope of ibis to somehow add a magical usability to the camera.

 

I remember watching Andrew Reids test of the oly OM-d with the ibis and thionking it looked cool, but also looked strange and jarring in the way the camera was impacting on movement.  It didnlt look like the movies.   

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

IBIS and In Lens Stabilisation are not for cinematic film making.  they always exhibit a camcorder look - ALWAYS!.  For stills it's great, but for video, if you can;t hold a camera steady you need to rework your handling technique.  Add weight to your camera and build up your guns.  

 

​That's an interesting opinion.

How have you come to that conclusion?  Is it through your own tests and experience or is it looking at other peoples work or test videos?  What is it about IS that you think is detrimental to the cinematic look?

I agree that, with sufficient weight, IS is not necessary.   However, from this, one could be forgiven for deducing that if someone wants a lightweight system that they should consider IS, unless one argues that a lightweight system should never be used.

It seems clear to me that the majority of amateurs are bad at hand-holding. (mainly because they aren't thinking about how to do it better or even thinking that they should try to do it better.)  

I'm inclined to think that someone who is bad at hand-holding is still going to be bad even if the lens has IS.  The IS can take the edge of their sloppiness, but it cant do magic.

Could, however, someone who is good at hand-holding not potentially get even smoother results (in a pan) or stiller results (in a static shot) with IS than without?

Or perhaps it’s the smoothness and stillness that you object to?

)Also, I should state that I share a sceptisism to in body IS as I have seen bad examples.  But if we presume we are talking about canon lens IS which I consider to be quite good. Though again, maybe it is the effectivness of the IS that you take issue with)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

IBIS and In Lens Stabilisation are not for cinematic film making.  they always exhibit a camcorder look - ALWAYS!.  For stills it's great, but for video, if you can;t hold a camera steady you need to rework your handling technique.  Add weight to your camera and build up your guns.  

​For those of us who don't have the luxury of always and only doing cinematic work, stabilization can be a godsend during corporate/wedding/boring work. I use a monopod pretty frequently during those kinds of gigs, and the 24-105 IS gets a lot of use because I can easily grab stable shots at 105 while remaining versatile. 

For cinematic work, the IS goes off (or more often, I ditch the 25-105 completely). It would be really nice to have IBIS available for all my lenses, so Sony definitely has my attention right now. 

There are going to be amateurs who never turn stabilization off, but abuse by amateurs isn't a reason to exclude a feature.​

Could, however, someone who is good at hand-holding not potentially get even smoother results (in a pan) or stiller results (in a static shot) with IS than without?

​I have yet to see and kind of in-camera/in-lens stabilization that allows for natural pans, slides, etc. The tech is meant for stills, so it tries to keep the sensor/lens in place. Trying to execute a nice motion will cause a weird robotic jerkiness most of the time. You can sometimes get it right, but in my experience it's pretty unpredictable.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

​I agree.  But for the purpose of this discussion, I felt it's a point worth making.  I get the impression most seem to think IBIS is the answer to lack of equioment and/or skills.  Big sensors are associated with big productions.  The look gives a feeling of heavy cameras and equipment that require heavy grip and skills in operating such equipment.  Since we have over 50 years of film making history to look back on, it's carved a consensus and an association.  You watch big budget westerns and you can see the weight of the equipment in the movement (and/or lack of movement in the camera work).  

 

I felt Chris Nolan's decision to hand hold the IMAX cameras when shooting Interstellar ultimately went towards undermining the look of imax.  The shots were clearly required for the film, but the look could have been achieved with a smaller camera.  The look of IMAX is not just the frame, but the huge film mags, huge cranes, etc that are usually part of the parcel.

  It's the same type of thing with people who have been sitting waiting for the a7smk2 in the hope of ibis to somehow add a magical usability to the camera.

 

I remember watching Andrew Reids test of the oly OM-d with the ibis and thionking it looked cool, but also looked strange and jarring in the way the camera was impacting on movement.  It didnlt look like the movies.   

Good post,

For me it's always a matter of an agreement with the viewer. If we early in the film/video are on agreeing terms that there is a camera that's moving, they will most often forgett it and enjoy the show.

If you are selling the illusion of let's say a ghost creaping up on a victim, then something like a gimbal is perfect. 

If its a man, then a regular bumpy ride from a shoulder rig is fine.

Same if its  "participating"shot like in hurt locker. 

But if its a dude thinking and coming to a conclusion maybe it's slider time.

Same with language and a school example is in Hunt for Red Oktober. They start of speaking Russian, a slow zoom in and out while they switch to English and woila.  The viewer will from now on know that Sheans English is Russian but who has the energy to subtitle. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

​That's an interesting opinion.

How have you come to that conclusion?  Is it through your own tests and experience or is it looking at other peoples work or test videos?  What is it about IS that you think is detrimental to the cinematic look?

I agree that, with sufficient weight, IS is not necessary.   However, from this, one could be forgiven for deducing that if someone wants a lightweight system that they should consider IS, unless one argues that a lightweight system should never be used.

It seems clear to me that the majority of amateurs are bad at hand-holding. (mainly because they aren't thinking about how to do it better or even thinking that they should try to do it better.)  

I'm inclined to think that someone who is bad at hand-holding is still going to be bad even if the lens has IS.  The IS can take the edge of their sloppiness, but it cant do magic.

Could, however, someone who is good at hand-holding not potentially get even smoother results (in a pan) or stiller results (in a static shot) with IS than without?

Or perhaps it’s the smoothness and stillness that you object to?

)Also, I should state that I share a sceptisism to in body IS as I have seen bad examples.  But if we presume we are talking about canon lens IS which I consider to be quite good. Though again, maybe it is the effectivness of the IS that you take issue with)

I think it's the robotic quality of the motion (or lack of motion) - exactly how most cgi misses the point since it's often created by people who have little to no experience with physics and the laws of physics.  the lack of limitation within a digital world means the people responsible for having to produce realistic cg means incorrect levels of physical constraint are included in the brief.

IS is a new thing - in film terms (regarding miniature mechanical IS- in lens, moving sensor etc) .  the fact that it's not within an Arri 435, an IMAX camera, Mitchell cameras, Panavision Panaflex's, AATONS, Alexa, F65, Red Epic. or in any of the flagship film making lenses used in Hollywood from day one.  From day one (lets say 60 years ago) the lack of IS (as it is currently implemented in consumer cameras and lenses) has meant film makers have not had it imparting its look onto the picture.  
 

Since we're way past the golden age of cinema - it is going down hill on the whole.  The golden era of hollywood started and died pretty much in unison with when John McTiernan started and stopped making films.  There are some film makers still doing it right, Nolan, Tarrantino, etc but the new kids are coming and making films without doing their homework or paying their dues to the glory days.  Who knows, if commercial cinema continues the way it's going IS will be commonplace in 50 years.  But I know when I'm sat in my deathbed and kids are wondering why films like the Hateful Eight look so much better than the shite we'll be seeing in 50 years only a few remaining humans will know about what kept us in the real world.  Physical objects, with weight and value.

 

I know I'm mad and old fashioned in my views.  But I'm pretty sure Tarrantino would agree if he had the time and desire to talk on forums:)

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Ebrahim Saadawi

Don't agree rich. This is perfectly true about Sensor Image stabilization as I was just saying, it's not cinematic, looks robotic and has artefacts.

But optical image stabilization, it doesn't have a single artefact now. It simply gives the exact identical result as if you were holding a bigger, heavier camera or had more muscle. 

Optical IS is cinematic and doesn't deliver any artefacts as far as I see. 

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.


×
×
  • Create New...