FS7: NO Sony Fs7!!

The more conversations between filmmakers I watch, read or listen to the more obvious it is that the human element directly affects performance. Whether that is the Director DP, AC or actor or a combination of all of them.

For example, Jake Gyllenhall talking to Roger Deakins discussing how the movement of the camera would inform the way he positioned himself or performed a certain way and Roger talking about particular performances would make him respond differently as an operator. This is the stuff that cannot be replicated by machine learning. You can code 'if x = a/b/c then x/y/z' but you cannot code inspiration. End of. Whatever aids people have to remove obstacles, there simply has to be humans being both proactive and reactive and affecting those around them.
 
Even with current AF tech it is often more focus maintenance than focus finding.

If a human is having to instruct the AF as to where to place focus, that is more a hybrid of manual / auto than automatic. “Manually directed auto focus”.

Again, lens choice is a factor in adoption. If a DP has to choose between an AF lens that is only an f/2.8 and a manual focus lens that is a f/1.2 they will in many instances go with the faster lens, putting aesthetic over missed-focus concern that, in my experience, isn’t much of a concern to DP’s or to productions in general. Because it doesn’t happen that often to where it spoils a take. And many DP’s would rather have to do a second-take as result of missed focus than give up the look that can be produced by the faster manual lens. Or give up the “vintage” qualities of older glass just to improve focus-hitting.They aren’t likely eager to give up their Zeiss Superspeeds for an f/2.8 Sony lens. Or even for a modern Zeiss AF lens.

Cost-saving is a factor but also not. Meaning, studios / Producers let DP’s / Directors do things that are not the most economical, as it is now. That five-minute continuous shot in the film 1917 wasn’t the most economical way of shooting. But they let the Director do it. Likewise, if a Director wants the look of vintage glass they would in instances be allowed that and not told, no, you must use AF glass because it is more economical as result of fewer takes for focus.

The above is in response to ahalpert’s suggestion that cost drives everything and as result of AF being more cost-saving it will eventually replace any use of manual glass.
 
NorBro said:
That was pretty much what I meant with the hovering cameras in 16K, 32K on the last page.

Just constantly filming...something.
Click to expand...


I watch these guys' clips quite often. It looks like 3-4 cameras on sticks and 2-3 "mobile" (whether on a gimbal or just hand held). They're not hesitant to get a cameraman in a shot, since it's not a narrative, but it is a live performance (subsequently edited). However, I do think that this is, roughly speaking, how one can shoot a narrative as well.
 
You can pretty much film anything in the world in the above way and in all of the other ways we imagine except narrative (at least most of it).

Because when you make serious movies, you need to tell the story in a direct manner that make sense...you can't just randomly cut to a floating drone or camera operator here and there (at least not if it's unplanned).

Stories, deliveries vary of course, but focal lengths, angles and camera movement are the driving force. WS - MS - CU - MS - CU - OTS - WS ...there has to be a plan for most narratives (some will naturally have more freedom than others).
 
The slapdash and scattergun 'well we'll just shoot everything and everyone and see what we get and edit it into something' idea is what videographers do. It is valid and has a place in the world for a lot of 'content'. Not in narrative.

DPs being the author of the image of a feature film do not do this. They serve a story and build a shot selection around it. Most DPs I have heard speak on the subject abhor coverage unless it's a 1-take wonder like an explosion. Most don't even like a B-cam as it has to compromise the A-cam!
 
That isn’t high-quality lighting or even high-quality production, imo.

Lighting for more than one camera position means compromise in quality of lighting.

Generally speaking, the production in features is very meticulous. Or “thorough”. On a set earlier this week they did not roll until 4 hours after crew-call. They spent hours lighting, positioning BG, working out the blocking and camera movement, rehearsing. For a scene that had no dialogue and will likely be all of 30 seconds in the film. By the time they got the shot to their satisfaction they were in grace, over 6 hours from crew-call. 6 hours to get one shot.

Granted, that was excessively slow b/c it involved many moving parts- camera on gimbal, being lowered on ropes, and transitioned off the rope-rig to be walked through a backyard party scene.

Being on feature sets can be like “watching paint dry”, they are so meticulous and exacting.

When things are that controlled, AF is less needed. It is known how the actor will travel, when they will travel, and to what points ( distances ). All marked on the follow focus in advance, distances measured, and rehearsed. The AC pulls to lens markings, making slight adjustment by eye from a monitor or “riding”, which I suppose is where AF could be a player. But there just isn’t the pressing need as with other types of production. AF also hunts, as human pullers hunt. Maybe less, but not necessarily.
 
NorBro said:
If the focus puller goes jobless, the camera operator does too. :evil::crybaby:
Click to expand...

I've been fiddling for a while using a Ronin-S mounted B-camera on a tripod or slider, using their fairly rudimentary action tracking capability. It's biggest problem is stability at the moment.
 
In general, it seems like there's a lot of hardware and software out there that's barely out of beta. IMO, the idea for many companies is to get something out ASAP before you're overshadowed by someone, and improve on it over the next 2-3 years.

[Camera FW updates may seem like thoughtful gifts for us, but many of the features were most likely always on the whiteboard.]

Most of us have been in the business long enough or simply alive long enough to live through the improvements of everything in daily life, and this new tech is no different and I think it will be a different conversation if revisited in 2025 or 2030.
 
That's just a 5-year, 10-year talking point; hungry, overzealous companies will continue creating unique equipment and solutions.

No comparison to putting people on the moon, but I think we are about to see some interesting changes, innovations in video production & post in the next 24-36 months.
 
I just saw some Block busters on TV
made with 3-10 100.000 + camera's
Expensive lenses, focus puller, clapper loader and lots of other crew.

In the end, one color grader downgrades it all to teal and orange.
 
NorBro said:
You can pretty much film anything in the world in the above way and in all of the other ways we imagine except narrative (at least most of it).

Because when you make serious movies, you need to tell the story in a direct manner that make sense...you can't just randomly cut to a floating drone or camera operator here and there (at least not if it's unplanned).

Stories, deliveries vary of course, but focal lengths, angles and camera movement are the driving force. WS - MS - CU - MS - CU - OTS - WS ...there has to be a plan for most narratives (some will naturally have more freedom than others).
Click to expand...

NorBro said:
That's just a 5-year, 10-year talking point; hungry, overzealous companies will continue creating unique equipment and solutions.

No comparison to putting people on the moon, but I think we are about to see some interesting changes, innovations in video production & post in the next 24-36 months.
Click to expand...

Soaps just do the two camera OTS + one wide and call it a day. It's a narrative, albeit static, with the overhead lighting. When One Life to Live aired on Hulu, they added the hand held work on top of that. And still shot 140 pages per day.

The thing is that, given the proliferation of streaming services, there's need for a decent looking and yet quick paced production at much lower costs. Personally, I don't think that many people can appreciate Gordon Willis and Robert Surtees anyway. What JP described is correct but the movement is away from it. The movie-of-the-week look is good enough.
 
Much simpler filming, but I'll never argue with "good enough" as that's always been the/my #1 reason for why the technology will take over.

If you can simplify any process that makes you money, you will support it. Or at least most will who aren't wholeheartedly attached to the art.
 
“ What JP described is correct but the movement is away from it. The movie-of-the-week look is good enough.”

Not the case with the film I was just doing bts for or the episodic ( Leverage 2.0 ) that I did last month. The films I did in 2019/2020, were not speed-shooting either.

I did a corporate job this week. The day was 15 hours for a 3-minute piece. Two cameras.

Even on 90 Day Fiancé, a reality tv show, we regularly spent 2 hours lighting and getting approval via zoom for sit-down interviews. One day it was 5 hours of lighting and tweaking before they signed off on it.
 
I agree with JP. Standards of quality and exactness vary and probably always will. It's all driven by the will of filmmakers and audiences. There's enough audience that likes pretty things to support the continuation of a maximalist aesthetic approach. And people like Kubrick go above and beyond what anyone demands anyway. All we can argue about is the proportions of material being shot in different manners and if some modes of production will ever become unsustainable.
 
Back to the FX9...

The locking mount slows down lens swaps. ( Same as with the Fs7mkii ). I found myself using EF lenses just to have faster swaps.

The menu layout is significantly different from the Fs7 and there is are a many more features to navigate / learn. I’m picking things up fairly quickly, but it can be confusing at first. The dual iso stuff, the many sensor options: FF6K, FF crop 5K, FF 2K, s35 4K, s35 2K.

I am finding that the VF display items look soft no matter what I try. I even tried diopters of different magnification. Jumping back on my Fs7 the VF display items looked more sharp and readable. I would have thought it would be just the opposite, FX9 display items more sharp / higher rez. Not the image, just the overlay.

It was my first time using eND. Too bad it “jumps” in and cannot incrementally start from “clear”. You still end up where the lowest level of ND is too much.

Thank goodness that the front dial can be used to navigate the menu because the up/down/ left/ right navigation buttons are difficult to depress, and I have thin fingers / fingertips. I didn’t use the control grip. Likely will not be using it much. I never use it when on my FS7.

Let’s see...what else? I already had my first double-rental. A job where I provided both the Fs7 and FX9.

All in all the FX9 feels like an Fs7 on steroids. Sans the XDCA the FX9 doesn’t feel that much larger in size. With the XDCA, yes, it becomes more beastly. That XDCA is hideous. Battery “slides” / distro backs are selling like hotcakes because the XDCA is less needed now that TC input is on the body. Sony should just give up the ghost on that and produce a battery-back like those being made by everyone else.

I priced a spare plastic cover that goes over the XDCA contacts. Sony rep said it is $52. < crying-laughing emoji >.
 
ahalpert said:
That sounds like a fairy-tale ending to the saga. They're not quite a match in post though, are they?
Click to expand...

I got a rental. Not to be flippant, but Post isn’t my concern. Client asks what cameras I own, approved Fs7 & FX9 tandem.

It likely isn’t that different than mixing A7sii & Fs7. Or mixing GoPro with Fs7.

That shoot was also mixing in some Sony Handycam model.

Fs7 & FX9 were both in rec 709, HG7.
 
JPNola said:
Back to the FX9...

The locking mount slows down lens swaps. ( Same as with the Fs7mkii ). I found myself using EF lenses just to have faster swaps.

The menu layout is significantly different from the Fs7 and there is are a many more features to navigate / learn. I’m picking things up fairly quickly, but it can be confusing at first. The dual iso stuff, the many sensor options: FF6K, FF crop 5K, FF 2K, s35 4K, s35 2K.

I am finding that the VF display items look soft no matter what I try. I even tried diopters of different magnification. Jumping back on my Fs7 the VF display items looked more sharp and readable. I would have thought it would be just the opposite, FX9 display items more sharp / higher rez. Not the image, just the overlay.

It was my first time using eND. Too bad it “jumps” in and cannot incrementally start from “clear”. You still end up where the lowest level of ND is too much.

Thank goodness that the front dial can be used to navigate the menu because the up/down/ left/ right navigation buttons are difficult to depress, and I have thin fingers / fingertips. I didn’t use the control grip. Likely will not be using it much. I never use it when on my FS7.

Let’s see...what else? I already had my first double-rental. A job where I provided both the Fs7 and FX9.

All in all the FX9 feels like an Fs7 on steroids. Sans the XDCA the FX9 doesn’t feel that much larger in size. With the XDCA, yes, it becomes more beastly. That XDCA is hideous. Battery “slides” / distro backs are selling like hotcakes because the XDCA is less needed now that TC input is on the body. Sony should just give up the ghost on that and produce a battery-back like those being made by everyone else.

I priced a spare plastic cover that goes over the XDCA contacts. Sony rep said it is $52. < crying-laughing emoji >.
Click to expand...

Yeah a lot of these little things greatly depend on what sort of
work you do. A lot of us (like me) are not in the 1% who work
on narrative. I did shoot a tv comedy series on the FX9 last
winter. Generally I like it but for my usual work, the ‘better’
locking lens mount is a minus as I’m usually by myself which
makes changing lenses quickly a tough job. So I ended up
buying the FX6 personally. I just got back from a travel
shoot and it’s awfully close to ideal for a ‘one man band’
filmmaker in the ‘trenches’ of video work....corporate stuff
where you shoot interviews and some B-roll quickly.
First off, it’s so small you can throw it in a backpack with
a drone and have a powerful package of gear in one carry on
bag. It does fantastic with interviews with the ‘eye autofocus.’
The client even had me do a ‘double’ with two interview
subjects on different planes and I was able to easily use the
joystick to flip back and forth between the ‘eyes’ on the
subjects depending on who answered the remote producer’s
questions. That was actually something I hadn’t expected...
how easy and quick it is to change who it ‘prioritized’ as far as
faces. The autofocus works very nice for handheld B-roll.
You need to finesse the autofocus settings depending on
what you are shooting. Slower settings gives a nice
‘natural’ looks almost like a human racking focus.
But for fast paced stuff where you jump from a close
up on the subjects hands to a MCU of their face, to
a wide shot of them in front of the assembly line, you
want the speed on the autofocus settings cranked up
to the max so you can get lots of shots quick. And the
size of it lets you move quick and get into lots of positions
which would be hard with a larger camera. Pretty happy
with the way it works although there are a few things which
could be improved via firmware.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top