Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Sold my FS7 today

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • scorsesefan
    replied
    Hopefully not that long. Where did you order yours? Mine at bh (they say Oct 4)

    Leave a comment:


  • stewhem
    replied
    Assuming you don’t die of old age before it arrives! I’ve been waiting months for mine.

    Leave a comment:


  • scorsesefan
    replied
    Sold my fs7 a few days ago, locally. Lost about a grand from what I paid less than a year ago. Never made a penny with it due to the pandemic and other reasons. Never had a "relationship" to it the way Ive had with my A7SIII and before that fs5. Something about shooting with the loupe that disconnects me from the subject IMO. With the fs5 I could keep eye contact. Oh well... Ordered an fx6, which has everything IQ wise I wanted in the fs5. Hopefully, we'll have a good relationship ;)

    Leave a comment:


  • ahalpert
    replied
    Originally posted by morgan_moore View Post
    I dont get the concept of 'liking' a colour science. You shoot a gretag card, (optionally apply the manufacturers LUT) and then colour pick the colours RGB values. Those values are then correct or incorrect as per the RGB values asigned to the card by its maker. End of.

    Should you not like the look of correct do another node of artistic colour swinging.
    it doesn't seem to work out that way, at the very least because the colors may not be accurate up and down the exposure scale, even if they're accurate in one place

    but sure, i've seen the results from RAW still files from different manufacturers and it's clear that you can get the same look from any camera. I think that with a thick file and some time to grade, the differences are immaterial. (Nevertheless, look at how useful Cinematch has been for people to match different cameras. That's a clear indicator that matching them manually was difficult.)

    But certainly, if you look at the behavior of in-camera color profiles and standard manufacturer LUTs, there are clear differences in the looks provided. And still photographers agree on that, too - that if you're shooting JPEGs, then the color science of the camera is very important

    Leave a comment:


  • cyvideo
    replied
    Originally posted by scorsesefan View Post
    5 percent haze LOL
    +1 I'll second that! The clients I've had where I have used Haze think it almost magical. I tell them that's "Cinematic".

    Chris Young

    Leave a comment:


  • morgan_moore
    replied
    I dont get the concept of 'liking' a colour science. You shoot a gretag card, (optionally apply the manufacturers LUT) and then colour pick the colours RGB values. Those values are then correct or incorrect as per the RGB values asigned to the card by its maker. End of.

    Should you not like the look of correct do another node of artistic colour swinging.

    Leave a comment:


  • scorsesefan
    replied
    Originally posted by ahalpert View Post

    I think I prefer the latest sony color science to the latest canon color science. At least in some modes/settings
    I was looking at some side-by-sides of the c70 and the a7siii and I was NOT digging the c70's colors. The skin tones had a bluish shift, although that may have been poor CC by the poster. I really loved the color on my c100 and the c200 has great color, so I was a bit surprised...

    Leave a comment:


  • ahalpert
    replied
    Originally posted by Liam Hall View Post

    Yes, I've used an FX9 and A7SIII a few times. And, yes, quite good is how I'd describe it. We should all demand better than quite good though, particularly when there are cameras like the GH5 that create a very pleasing image at a fraction of the cost - horrid little camera though it is.
    I think I prefer the latest sony color science to the latest canon color science. At least in some modes/settings

    Leave a comment:


  • NorBro
    replied
    The original BMPCC had some of the worse IR contamination there was.

    Being an early adapter in 2013 (per usual), that camera probably was a science project at some points in time. Initially it didn't have simple features like a battery meter (you never knew when you'd run out of power, lol), and you couldn't format your cards in the camera (had to use a computer). Plus other things I probably don't remember any more.

    The new cameras are much better after about 10 years of experience, naturally.

    Leave a comment:


  • Liam Hall
    replied
    Originally posted by NorBro View Post

    P.S. The Blackmagic URSA was also released in 2014 and destroyed the FS7's IQ, but 90% wouldn't use BM in 2014 and YouTube wasn't like it is today, so no one knew.
    I've used them and really like what the company do but Blackmagic cameras have always felt a bit like a school science project to me. There is a lot to admire but they always fall short in crucial features - the IR contamination on the BMPCC is a case in point.

    Leave a comment:


  • Liam Hall
    replied
    Originally posted by scorsesefan View Post
    Liam. Have you handled any of the footage from the Sony FX series or the A7SIII? The colors are quite good...
    Yes, I've used an FX9 and A7SIII a few times. And, yes, quite good is how I'd describe it. We should all demand better than quite good though, particularly when there are cameras like the GH5 that create a very pleasing image at a fraction of the cost - horrid little camera though it is.

    Leave a comment:


  • NorBro
    replied
    P.P.S. This is actually a funny fact about the URSA:

    Blackmagic - coming from making really high-quality, pure-output hardware - simply never knew how to limit cameras.

    Grant Petty wanted the highest-quality in everything and so they made the URSA have 4K/60p RAW and ProRes UHD 444XQ (in 2014!!) and there were zero cards on the market which could write that fast at the time (still months away).

    So they ended up introducing a dual-card mode in FW that wrote alternate CinemaDNG frames on two cards.

    Card 1 would have "1.DNG" and Card 2 would have "2.DNG"...

    Card 1 would have "3.DNG" and Card 2 would have "4.DNG"...

    ETC.

    Then later you'd take one of the cards and copy-and-paste all of its frames into the other card's folder.

    ___

    Could you imagine if you messed something up? LOL

    Archaic workflow but Resolve recognized the files in the now one folder perfectly afterwards. (Of course the downside was no ProRes in this case.)

    Eventually (and allegedly), RED had them end internal CinemaDNG a couple of years later, so it didn't matter and BRAW was born.

    Leave a comment:


  • NorBro
    replied
    He has a C500 Mark II so his vision has changed...most people don't go back to Sony after using Canon, ha.

    ___

    Originally posted by Liam Hall View Post
    When the FS7 hit the market it there wasn't anything close to its price point with its feature set.
    P.S. The Blackmagic URSA was also released in 2014 and destroyed the FS7's IQ, but 90% wouldn't use BM in 2014 and YouTube wasn't like it is today, so no one knew.

    Leave a comment:


  • scorsesefan
    replied
    Liam. Have you handled any of the footage from the Sony FX series or the A7SIII? The colors are quite good...

    Leave a comment:


  • Ben Scott
    replied
    Wish we could still like posts. Agree with all that. Except of course the kids won't even know who Storaro is

    Your Canon is another level in terms of image quality. Depressing to hear that from Sky.

    Leave a comment:

Working...
X