squig
Veteran
Yeah looks like IR pollution, when I tried to grade it the sky went a bit magenta, to be expected in that kind of light. I came across an interesting test of NDs and IR filters done on the Alexa: https://vimeo.com/35559013
A7s sample footage
- Thread starter squig
- Start date
Yeah looks like IR pollution, when I tried to grade it the sky went a bit magenta, to be expected in that kind of light. I came across an interesting test of NDs and IR filters done on the Alexa: https://vimeo.com/35559013
Well, I do shoot with BMD cameras =P SLOG's kind of cake. Using a TV LOgic maxed out on setting has been great but I do think I'm going to get an AC7.
RE: IR Filtering and NDs, look at Hoya ProND -- there's a massive thread on BMCuser, most o'us have switched over to ProND a while ago.
The day I do get my hands on the A7S I'll be ready... I have the entire dang set up to 1000x
squig
Veteran
Screw ons? Lulz. But without a matte box I won't be a professional :grin:
I don't know about calibrating the AC7 for S-log, I'll try. Getting it to look right with the 5D raw was no easy task.
Further regarding external recorders, I know this isn't a stress test etc. etc., but if this is any general indication of external, hardly seems worth the effort.
https://vimeo.com/44527935
And that's AVCHD, not XAVC. And yeah it's PR422 not 444 , and not an A7s, just looking for something in the same ballpark.
https://vimeo.com/44527935
And that's AVCHD, not XAVC. And yeah it's PR422 not 444 , and not an A7s, just looking for something in the same ballpark.
=P You're using a DSLR... you have more to worry about in that sense than what people think about your threaded NDs.
But on a serious note, if you aren't actually buying 4x5.6 Mitomo TrueNDs, then Hoya ProNDs are the next best thing. There's no way I would invest in any other ND out there knowing those exist. "Looking professional" and turning out an undeniably solid image... just use a mattebox as a shade and get the better NDs.
I know Squig's comment was in jest...but somehow I've managed to make hundreds of thousands of dollars the last few years off of a DSLR without ever owning a mattebox. If I had spent a few bucks on one, who knows, maybe I could have made a million because my clients would have been so impressed.
squig
Veteran
Like I ever gave a **** about how I look. I'm too lazy and clumsy for screw-ins. I've got a 77mm Schneider polarizer that cost a kidney that I'm too scared to use :violin: I'll check out the Mitomo's. There's some drop in mod for screw-ins isn't there?
BTW good luck with that ETTL theory, make sure you have your denoiser handy.
squig
Veteran
I know Squig's comment was in jest...but somehow I've managed to make hundreds of thousands of dollars the last few years off of a DSLR without ever owning a mattebox. If I had spent a few bucks on one, who knows, maybe I could have made a million because my clients would have been so impressed.
If you wanna look professional all you need is a baseball cap. Actors have always looked at my DSLRs with fear..... then they see how good they look.
Some of those stills are just plain nasty, particularly in part 4. Overexposed, poor skin tones, inadvertent motion blur, high noise. I wouldn't have kept any of those shots. The rhetoric is way out of proportion to the demonstrated still image quality. And the claim that the A7s has 15.3 stops of dynamic range has been disproven by the DxO tests.
squig
Veteran
Bloody good for a point and shoot! The shots of the first nations dudes look very different, underexposure?
I thought it was common knowledge that the best images require some fine-tuning, including some amount of noise reduction if you aren't happy with the floor?
TrueNDs are about 500 each.
strancali
Well-known member
Yeah that was maybe too underexposed lol. I tried getting good color out of it, but didn't really succeed.
+1 for political correctness!
philiplipetz
Veteran
Wifi video to smartphone. http://t.co/JNFd7Ms9Y6
squig
Veteran
:kiss: The noise is going to be the least of your problems. There's just no life in the underexposed shots, I don't think they can be resurrected.
500 each huh, it's a good thing my matte box is 4x4.
Are you using a filter holder or are you screwing them?
Here is the ungraded footage for anyone who feels adventuress enough to download a 3GB file 
This is untouched XAVC S exported as 10bit 1080P DNxHD.
https://mega.co.nz/#!TEVEgYIb!LuYc4DluTRG9EkeZOPbkbMVytMEyxSW88stb3xEwHNU
This is untouched XAVC S exported as 10bit 1080P DNxHD.
https://mega.co.nz/#!TEVEgYIb!LuYc4DluTRG9EkeZOPbkbMVytMEyxSW88stb3xEwHNU
cpc
Well-known member
After playing with Roman's dpx files I must say that unfortunately s-log is pushing the 8-bit 4:2:0 space too much. There is banding in skin after you work it to a reasonable contrast, and it is noticeable. The noise serves as a mask and you can certainly do clever things in post to work around it. But it is exactly that: a workaround. The footage is certainly useable, but it is thin and does look thin.
Maybe playing with the camera profile parameters can stretch mids some and make them better. Maybe 4K-for-2K will help eventually.
I am still curious about the other profiles, especially the 800% curve.
Maybe playing with the camera profile parameters can stretch mids some and make them better. Maybe 4K-for-2K will help eventually.
I am still curious about the other profiles, especially the 800% curve.
Eh.. I disagree. I'm seeing what I expect out of 8-bit/dslrs, just a bit better than most. As in it still looks like DSLR footage but it does have something to it.
I guess at this point it's letting people discover what's best practice for acquiring it.
I have no issues using threaded filters, I do the same thing when shooting with Mini S4s. I prefer to run without a mattebox in most cases, and sold my MB off years ago. I would look at another for the use of grads.
Same thing I thought. THe noise from underexposing actually seems to help the SLOG2, but I think PP4 or PP5 may fill out the 8-bit XAVC S a bit more than SLOG2 can.
The most troubling aspect's the persistent yellow...