A7s sample footage

squig said:
Yeah that's what I've been seeing too. Which PP are you using with S-Log? So many peeps testing, hard to keep track. I've been having issues with FCPX.

I just started an A7s post workflow thread http://www.dvxuser.com/V6/showthread.php?326181-A7s-post-workflow&p=1986457571#post1986457571 can everyone post their findings there, there's already been some interesting colour space stuff discussed in this and other threads.
Click to expand...


I'm still using the stock Slog2 profile with Sgamut most of the time. Hit that with f55 presets in Filmcovert and it works out great! FCPX's colorboard is fine too but harder to get those mapped tones that FC produces. (Their hardwork vs. my laziness :)
 
SLog2 stock profile is great, and then a human jumps into the frame haha. But FC or Impulz help out a lot.

Grads are your friend.
 
Kholi your stuff looked great.

I think S-Log2 should be used only when you really need it, in difficult situations where preserving dynamic range is very important.

I watched 10 pages of everyone trying to grade and bring back to life S-Log2 footage, wasting time guessing what LUT to use. Worrying that the camera's color science or rendering of skin tones was incorrect. And hoping they didn't shred already compressed 8bit video. Some of those results looked like instagram filters, it was not a good look.

Why not just pick a picture profile, and expose correctly. Use the principles of good photography and good cinematography that we're all familiar with?
 
evanburke said:
Kholi your stuff looked great.

I think S-Log2 should be used only when you really need it, in difficult situations where preserving dynamic range is very important.

I watched 10 pages of everyone trying to grade and bring back to life S-Log2 footage, wasting time guessing what LUT to use. Worrying that the camera's color science or rendering of skin tones was incorrect. And hoping they didn't shred already compressed 8bit video. Some of those results looked like instagram filters, it was not a good look.

Why not just pick a picture profile, and expose correctly. Use the principles of good photography and good cinematography that we're all familiar with?
Click to expand...


Okay so here's my thing... from what I gathered, the original Slog2 profile is solid in all areas aside from like.. humans. As soon as skin drops into the frame, S-Gamut seems to go crazy (the yellow that Paul and JCS mention). Otherwise it's all good. On the opposite end, this may change as you guys explore more, none of the other gammas felt cleaner or "better" to me. They were okay, but just using the Slog2 gamma alone and working with color matrix really turned the camera around for me. Every time I think I'm getting something better with another Profile, I jump over to the weirdo SLog2 wannabe thing I created and it's just really really close to be completely satisfactory...

... as long as the camera's given the right amount o flight! So yes, expose correctly. What I'm guessing's gotten into everyone's head is that the camera's super lowlight sensitive and yes, yes it is. But it's not actually coming without a noise penalty. And yeah, there's a LOT of DR in this lil' dude, I've witnessed it in large contrast situations, the Slog2 Gamma is enough to utilize that, but it isn't RAW or Linear RAW. You need to just let the DR go where it wants to in favor of exposing for the low end in certain situations (massive contrast, a sheet of paper blown out, etc.).

You can't save it all, or you end up killing the rest.

I'm basically agreeing with you, though, that you just need to expose. That also means letting light into the camera before adding gain.

On the 3200 ISO, I'm seeing the same thing that Sam H, Paulcurtis, and now ectobuilder's seen: The 3200 is about 1000 ISO, and looks cleaner than other PicPros at lower ISOs. It's early observations and there's a lot more to come, though!

I've got weird tastes, and I'm incredibly picky (with food, as well =P)... this is the first camera since the 2.5K BMD camera that I think is as good AS the 2.5K camera, for different reasons. It doesn't shoot RAW or ProRes out of the box, no, and it isn't perfect, but it's right up there with that camera... I guess coming from me that's kinda crazy.
 
I watched 10 pages of everyone trying to grade and bring back to life S-Log2 footage, wasting time guessing what LUT to use. Worrying that the camera's color science or rendering of skin tones was incorrect. And hoping they didn't shred already compressed 8bit video. Some of those results looked like instagram filters, it was not a good look.

Why not just pick a picture profile, and expose correctly. Use the principles of good photography and good cinematography that we're all familiar with?
Click to expand...

Because exposing "correctly" doesn't work as well as purposefully overexposing a couples stops and bringing it back down. The rest is subjective taste. Michael Bay brings in the big bucks and I don't think his color treatments are classical in any sense. You could say "instagram like". I agree that classic techniques are valuable but it's ok to play around, is it not? When the clients are demanding a certain look or feel, that's when it's someone's job and appropriate make the decisions necessary to make that happen.
 
cyork said:
Because exposing "correctly" doesn't work as well as purposefully overexposing a couples stops and bringing it back down. The rest is subjective taste. Michael Bay brings in the big bucks and I don't think his color treatments are classical in any sense. You could say "instagram like". I agree that classic techniques are valuable but it's ok to play around, is it not? When the clients are demanding a certain look or feel, that's when it's someone's job and appropriate make the decisions necessary to make that happen.
Click to expand...


Sure but are you getting good results? Quality is the bottom line in professional work.
 
evanburke said:
Sure but are you getting good results? Quality is the bottom line in professional work.
Click to expand...

I think so but that's pretty subjective. I think there are plenty of clients that will pay for what I can produce with the camera, if that is the benchmark (or at least one of the benchmarks) for being a professional. Looks gorgeous. These tests are great but they are not based around any grade or image that I would end up using. If you're trying to break it, you will and we already knew that it's not an F5 for 20k...or even an FS700 for sub 10k. I can match it all day long with my BMCC stuff as long the way I expose and deliver.
 
Here are some stills from the A7s. The colors just aren't accurate, the grades are desaturated and murky, color shifting, even some yellows to the skin....I don't think anyone would pay for work like this...
9197_5_large.jpg too much green in Jake's face.
4321_2_large.jpg very dim, too much orange and no pure whites!
1573_14_large.jpg some yellowy splotches in skin tones.
9197_18_large.jpg skin is not pink like a mouse? Who was at the panel that day?!

Ok, ok. I'll stop ;) It's all subjective, lots of ways to run with an image for moods and taste. What is clear is that when you have a vision, experience and ideally a crew and a budget, you can create fantastic images with just about any camera. Give Deakins a T2i and put a competent colorist at the helm and you'd get an image that worked within it's boundaries that would blow your mind.

Now, this shot to me, looks great. It's moody and exactly what I saw in my head. Didn't look anything like this in my actual exposure. Sure, some will say "I wouldn't have done that" but it's one of the my favorite grabs from the A7s so far. The flexibility of Slog2 gave me the chance to change my mind in post with the extra latitude. Glad I shot it. It worked out :)
This is what I liked best.
film look 7 copy.jpg
Alternate frame that shows more available in the highlights and shadows that I didn't want.
resolve grade 3_1.2.2.jpg
90% of the artifacts you see are from the compression via this post. I don't see any of that on my end.
 
Last edited:
evanburke said:
Sure but are you getting good results? Quality is the bottom line in professional work.
Click to expand...

I am not sure you actually know what are you talking about. However I am pretty sure that "cyork", "Kholi" and some others know what they are talking about. What they shared is really valuable opposed to your comments...
 
cyork said:
Here are some stills from the A7s. The colors just aren't accurate, the grades are desaturated and murky, color shifting, even some yellows to the skin....I don't think anyone would pay for work like this...
Click to expand...

LMFAO... going to pick mine up now.
 
cyork, thanks for the comparative examples. While we explore technical aspects of a new camera, the a7S, it certainly will great to pair with the BMCC in my instance. I can use a 35,50,75mm ana lenses with FF, and then BMCC having an approximate 2.3x factor on the FOV, helping to obtain the longer end of glass I don't have, at the cost of having DOF of the original lenses spec, which is ok for the longer end, as I may be able to narrow the focus plane, if that image result is intended. Colour is one thing, being creative and doing is something else, I am trying to get out of editing...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top