Jump to content

Sony A7S II is out!


liork

Recommended Posts

  • Replies 241
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

it matters a lot in situations where there is only one of the basic colours: for example under water, where only blue is left, (green and red gone) you only have 8 bit blue left, and this give clear b

Massive resolution photos...which is a big bonus if you're looking for an all in one camera.

Sony's plan cannot get any clearer: Get an A7rii for high res stills, then an A7sII for low light video, then an FS5/7 for actual work,  and next year start all over again.   

Posted Images

sunyata, read the post of Karim... :-)

Check out the results of the updated image if you want to see a different radial used to start with... both radials have more banding as you would expect, but the 4:2:2 is marginally better; I think quite a few people wouldn't know the difference. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Check out the results of the updated image if you want to see a different radial used to start with... both radials have more banding as you would expect, but the 4:2:2 is marginally better; I think quite a few people wouldn't know the difference. 

Yep, 4:2:0 might indeed introduce some banding but for grading 10bit will be a much better improvement. 

Anyways, lets all agree that a 10bit 4:2:2 will offer a much better image to grade. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Who said 4:2:2 is more important than 10-bit? The difference between 8-bit 4:2:2 and 8-bit 4:2:0, it is more significant for your grading. Much different statement. Of course, for certain type of grading. No mention of raw or alike where even 10-bit is short by default. People too much focused on the 10-bit holy grail tend to forget ; ) But, banding was the topic (hence my "the-real-difference" of my post; numbers help but like machines need i-n-t-e-r-p-r-e-t-a-t-i-o-n :-D) :

http://www.eoshd.com/comments/topic/9390-sony-a7s-ii-is-out/?do=findComment&comment=106562

Speaking of math, let's see with a very simple case: 1) 100,000; 2) 1,000,000; 3) 10,000,000. Where's the bigger difference? Now, take these figures as bucks and your single expense as any number between 100,000 and 1,000,000. Which step will make the whole difference?

Here goes your single example on pictures, posted and reposted more than once:

http://www.eoshd.com/comments/topic/9355-canon-announces-development-of-8k-cinema-eos-camera-and-120mp-dslr/?do=findComment&comment=105935

But you're comparing high compression 4:2:0 to uncompressed 4:2:2...a scientific test requires controlled variables.

My understanding was that the main advantages of 4:2:2 were a bump in chroma resolution and, therefore, cleaner chroma keying. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Yep, 4:2:0 might indeed introduce some banding but for grading 10bit will be a much better improvement. 

Anyways, lets all agree that a 10bit 4:2:2 will offer a much better image to grade. 

 

But you're comparing high compression 4:2:0 to uncompressed 4:2:2...a scientific test requires controlled variables.

My understanding was that the main advantages of 4:2:2 were a bump in chroma resolution and, therefore, cleaner chroma keying. 

 

Have you followed the basic example I posted up there? (I mean, the A-B-C case). That's the whole point.

In any case, I bet the new BMD cameras will stop the usual whining on 10-bit like a savior mantra.

HDCAM was 8-bit 3:1:1 and all that began the replacement of film for digital. Anything higher is better, yes, but the difference can be pointless or of lower importance when you're able to rid off banding when necessary. No need for an Uzi to hunting birds.

PS: IIRC, it was ProRes and not uncompressed. The comparison is still worthy.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Returning to the topic, after seeing hundreds of videos, and discussed with dozens of professional, better than me, my opinion is that you need for the home movie 4k it's minimum 10-bit 4:2:2, so you do not have bands, and a good color classification.

For me in A7sII had to have this option, at least on the HDMI output, only 8 bits 4:2:2 are lost time...

Link to post
Share on other sites

Returning to the topic, after seeing hundreds of videos, and discussed with dozens of professional, better than me, my opinion is that you need for the home movie 4k it's minimum 10-bit 4:2:2, so you do not have bands, and a good color classification.

For me in A7sII had to have this option, at least on the HDMI output, only 8 bits 4:2:2 are lost time...

I guess that example posted up there proves exactly the contrary.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Have you followed the basic example I posted up there? (I mean, the A-B-C case). That's the whole point.

In any case, I bet the new BMD cameras will stop the usual whining on 10-bit like a savior mantra. HDCAM was 8-bit 3:1:1 and all that began the replacement of film for digital. Anything higher is better, yes, but the difference can be pointless or of lower importance when you're able to rid off banding when necessary. No need for an Uzi to hunting birds.

Unfortunately the test that you referred to is not performed properly as others have mentioned. 

sunyata example shows exactly the difference between 4:2:0 and 4:2:2, and not any possible differences from the codec, sampling, bitrate that were not the same in the test your are referring to. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Unfortunately the test that you referred to is not performed properly as others have mentioned. 

sunyata example shows exactly the difference between 4:2:0 and 4:2:2, and not any possible differences from the codec, sampling, bitrate that were not the same in the test your are referring to. 

No, no. Others, who?

I've just seen someone saying inaccurately the comparison was done with uncompressed 4:2:2 when actually it was ProRes (COMPRESSED) 4:2:2.

Another one who is trying to convince the other side with "I don't know" (his exact words) and after one bet and three "maybes" in the same post (only because internal 4:2:0 was recorded simultaneously) ...and you come here to tell me so as some scientific truth?!!

Oh c'mon, man... I am not a child, my friend.

- E :-)

Link to post
Share on other sites

PS: In any case, if you want to "blame" the codec or bitrate for the bigger difference, be my guest. I don't see where this doesn't match the discussion. Your 10-bit request is far away to be mandatory to kill banding. You just need the right balance of some variables. If you read what I'm used to post in these boards, that fits perfectly the equation. Let's not stuck up in our own likings and pay attention to facts with an open mind instead. 10-bit is just a number as any other.

Link to post
Share on other sites

No, no. Others, who?

I've just seen someone saying inaccurately the comparison was done with uncompressed 4:2:2 when actually it was ProRes (COMPRESSED) 4:2:2.

Another one who is trying to convince the other side with "I don't know" (his exact words) and after one bet and three "maybes" in the same post (only because internal 4:2:0 was recorded simultaneously) ...and you come here to tell me so as some scientific truth?!!

Oh c'mon, man... I am not a child, my friend.

- E :-)

PS: In any case, if you want to "blame" the codec or bitrate for the bigger difference, be my guest. I don't see where this doesn't match the discussion.

I didn't say it doesn't match the discussion, I said is not as conclusive as you would like it to be. It could very well be the case in that test that 4:2:0 is responsible for the banding, but it could as well be the case that the banding originates from the worse codec, and more compressed image coming from the internal recording. 

Let's not stuck up in our own likings and pay attention to facts with an open mind instead. 10-bit is just a number as any other.

sunyata provided us with a better test that I guess you don't like that much ;) .

Link to post
Share on other sites

Emanuel, it's a really simple test to replicate, please feel free to try. I was working on a different test more related to this topic of the A7sII and S-Log3 when I got distracted by that Vimeo link. Here's the S-Log-3 test: 

slog2v3_8bit_marcie.png

I was rendering a 3D project, I swear I don't just do tests all day. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
 

I didn't say it doesn't match the discussion, I said is not as conclusive as you would like it to be. It could very well be the case in that test that 4:2:0 is responsible for the banding, but it could as well be the case that the banding originates from the worse codec, and more compressed image coming from the internal recording. 

sunyata provided us with a better test that I guess you don't like that much ;). 

You said it is "not as conclusive as I would like to" based on apparent conclusive stuff. Actually, it is not (as my previous post allegations can detail).

At least, we can agree on the sum up, very well. But please don't tell me I don't much like sunyata's test. Even though, his failed introduction as me and other two posters were able to point out. When finally served for something worthy (you call it better, I would say complementary entry), it is welcome and taken as valid. Except it doesn't touch the other one nor the points observed. The only remark in your behalf is exactly the complementary nature of those other variables beyond the basics 8-bit vs 10-bit dichotomy. And when I see people to still pop up to underestimate 8-bit, I just see the need to reiterate it.

Emanuel, it's a really simple test to replicate, please feel free to try. I was working on a different test more related to this topic of the A7sII and S-Log3 when I got distracted by that Vimeo link. Here's the S-Log-3 test: 

slog2v3_8bit_marcie.png

I was rendering a 3D project, I swear I don't just do tests all day. 

And your point now is? :-)

Link to post
Share on other sites

lol, the marcie is just FPO. This is a gamma test of S-Log2 vs S-Log3 with an 8bit intermediate pipeline. I think the banding in the toe for the S-Log3 looks better than S-Log2 (top right ramps) and clearly more contrast below like 6% is retained (bottom chart). Highlights aren't really as different as I was expecting. S-Log3 should be a little brighter but I can barely notice it. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hello , everybody are arguing on 10 bit or not , do you see the differences etc... but that's not the point. If sony puts in the A7S II, the XVAC-S, and not the XVAC, it's clearly to tag it as a consumer product, not a professionnal one !! 10 bit or more or raw is not a question of seeing the differences, it's a question of being possible  to post work shoots or not. At 8 bit, you'd better have graded during recording, no lattitude at all in front of your computer later.

After that , sony marketing is entering the game, don't expect them to tell you that the product is a cripplehardware.

But if the price is correct, why complaining. For myself they are surfing "sur une mode ", so price doesn't reflect reality. better watch blackmagic, kineraw products for real bargain for possibilities. A7S and now A7S 2 are overrated, seing short films from them does'nt transcend me. Still 5D mk2 produce more artistic rushes.

5 axis is cool, but we are not named gus van sant. 3500€ is a great bunch of money, imagine what A7S owners are thinking now hearing news from a A7S 2 so quickly issued, not so cool sony !!!

I must admit , i've bought a6000 for 450€, which is in fact is a bargain !!

Link to post
Share on other sites

lol, the marcie is just FPO. This was a gamma test of S-Log2 vs S-Log3 with an 8bit intermediate pipeline. I think the banding in the toe for the S-Log3 looks better than S-Log2 (top right ramps) and clearly more stops below like 6% are retained (bottom chart). Highlights aren't really as different as I was expecting. S-Log3 should be a little brighter but I can barely notice it. 

I had that marcie once to try out some stuff and the file was very nice to work with in photoshop. I think it's some raw negative scan, you tell me ;)

Link to post
Share on other sites

lol, the marcie is just FPO. This is a gamma test of S-Log2 vs S-Log3 with an 8bit intermediate pipeline. I think the banding in the toe for the S-Log3 looks better than S-Log2 (top right ramps) and clearly more contrast below like 6% is retained (bottom chart). Highlights aren't really as different as I was expecting. S-Log3 should be a little brighter but I can barely notice it. 

Jokes aside, that's correct. Figures say too little, at times even to those used to handle them. Some other time, they correspond to marketing. To others, they serve as show off. Just when you have some improper annoyance as banding, you pay attention to the significance and extension of their role.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Yea, it's a 4k 10bit cin file (although I think it was originally scanned at 2k), maybe the last of the film neg leader ladies? As time goes on, she starts to look lower and lower quality  :persevere: You can still push the hell out of her hair. 

http://www.northwestchicagofilmsociety.org/wp-content/uploads/2011/09/DSCN2295-e1316147819183.jpg

 

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...