Sony A7SIII = $3500, 10-bit 4K120p internal, 16-bit 4K60p RAW out

Bassman2003 said:
Thanks for posting. The motion looks better than others I have seen with less immediacy. Also, I have noticed an overall trend towards yellow in a lot of the A7sIII footage. I know it was early in the day which influences (same with PB's river shoot) but it makes the greens less appealing to me. Anyway, very nice and I wish I could get some source clips from this edit to play with!
Click to expand...

Source clips are available here:

https://drive.google.com/drive/fold...rWtejYeGQHq5hfTCNOKXBrdliOZ4w4cvrja5IrzGgRnhY
 
Last edited:
ahalpert said:
Ok point well taken. Yet I wonder if it's as simple as that considering that the reproduction technology is so fundamentally different and constrained relative to real life.

In any case, I think both zeiss and sony fail in the "faithful reproduction of reality" department because both seem to color it IMO. Especially Sony's greens. I love green colors and the incredible variety you see in nature. But in most Sony recorded video, the greens feel like they're punching me in the eye, and not in a good way.

I guess I would say that if you cant actually reproduce reality, choices and interpretations of how to do so must be made along the way

There are also neurological manipulations that act upon our perceptions of reality but not when we're viewing/hearing a recording. So, in that sense seeing a faithful reproduction would not even look the same to us

I guess that's my point. My theory of faithful reproduction is that it should look/feel the same to a viewer so they couldn't tell if they were looking through a window or at a screen (for example). But if you base your theory of reproduction on matching the readings you get from a color meter on your screen and in reality, you may fail to satisfy my theory of reproduction.
Click to expand...

Just want to rule out some aspects:
 
James0b57 said:
Just want to rule out some aspects:
Click to expand...

Woof that's a big dose of Sony Northrup...

But if memory serves me, his conclusion was that color science didnt matter if you shot raw. But it matters if you shoot jpeg or video. Not sure if what's true of RAW is true of LOG
 
ahalpert said:
Woof that's a big dose of Sony Northrup...
Click to expand...
Exactly. Tony was able to shoot the Sony in such a way that photo enthusiasts preferred the Sony look. Meaning that the user is a factor in the whole "colour science" discussion. A good shooter with a Sony is going to be better than a bad shooter with Canon.

But if memory serves me, his conclusion was that color science didnt matter if you shot raw. But it matters if you shoot jpeg or video. Not sure if what's true of RAW is true of LOG
Click to expand...
Colour science matters. Even in raw, it helps with a starting point. Stills images go through so much more processing in photoshop that colour science may not matter there so much. But video colouring is a bit more crude, and it matters more there. I do dislike the way DaVinci Resolve selects and adjust colours. Way too difficult to make selective adjustments without artifacts. Wold love to know if anyone has more experience with Davinci that knows some tricks.
 
PS I don't think Tony looks great in that video. I mean it's an edgy look, I suppose... But the highlights are a bit hot and the skin is a little lackluster and tinted-looking. It could be cool in a movie scene. Maybe it's what he was going for.

One thing I want to avoid, which I suppose comes from not having a good LUT, is the "tinted" look I so often see in Sony-shot videos where it seems that someone has tried to fix the colors by giving things some pushes in the 3-way color corrector. but it ends up looking a bit tinted
 
Teddy_Dem said:
Source clips are available here:

https://drive.google.com/drive/fold...rWtejYeGQHq5hfTCNOKXBrdliOZ4w4cvrja5IrzGgRnhY
Click to expand...

Thanks so much for the link.

My thoughts: I had a good play in Edius and some in Premiere Pro and I have to say these clips look great. The motion and color are very nice on my preview monitor. I mentioned the yellowish tint to the final edit, I have found that is pretty LUT dependent. When I put the slog-3 Sony LUT on the sun rays in many of the shots went towards yellow. When I put an Alexa LUT on the sun rays went towards orange. A Normal 709 LUT was orange as well.

Overall, this exercise has changed my perception of the camera. When I play back what I worked on, by no means do I think "that is Sony"... It just looks like great imagery. Not overly sharpened and no funky colors or skin tone. Thanks again and now I have to rethink my plans!

I noticed Sony lowered the price of their XLR unit to $499. If you guys are listening, $399 would really seal the deal! :)
 
ReelFilmGeek said:
Thanks for sharing, only played around with it for a few minutes but was pretty happy with what I saw. Ugh I want to hate this camera for slacking on the photo side but it keeps looking like I will be adding one to my kit haha. Curious if there are any tests out there of it in multicam use and matching the look with the fs5/fs7.
Click to expand...

Too early for that I think but based on the difficulties of matching FS7 and FX9, matching A7SIII and fs5/fs7 may be a PITA.

Cinematch may help though, who knows. That's in development by the filmgrade nitrate people
 
Teddy_Dem said:
Source clips are available here:

https://drive.google.com/drive/fold...rWtejYeGQHq5hfTCNOKXBrdliOZ4w4cvrja5IrzGgRnhY
Click to expand...

Did some grades on these. As I previously noted, the dynamic range on this camera is very good:

50223741391_bb0596c519_o.jpg
[/url]SonyA7SIIIJCFrames_1.7.1 by Teddy Dem, on Flickr[/IMG]

50223096313_64b71c5a2f_o.jpg
[/url]SonyA7SIIIJCFrames_1.2.1 by Teddy Dem, on Flickr[/IMG]

50223742821_64d9d79897_o.jpg
[/url]SonyA7SIIIJCFrames_1.6.1 by Teddy Dem, on Flickr[/IMG]

50223744391_033b2eb429_o.jpg
[/url]SonyA7SIIIJCFrames_1.5.1 by Teddy Dem, on Flickr[/IMG]
 
Why do people think the promo videos all looked so meh?

I mean, sure, it's no surprise if a few of the filmmakers chose a look I disliked or had poor grading skills...

But I feel like based on what I've seen can be done with different LUTs applied to straight-from-camera footage, the launch films almost universally did a disservice to the camera.

Or some worked well, but with a stylized look. None of them showed a naturalistic look and many of them just looked bad to me
 
ahalpert said:
Why do people think the promo videos all looked so meh?

I mean, sure, it's no surprise if a few of the filmmakers chose a look I disliked or had poor grading skills...

But I feel like based on what I've seen can be done with different LUTs applied to straight-from-camera footage, the launch films almost universally did a disservice to the camera.

Or some worked well, but with a stylized look. None of them showed a naturalistic look and many of them just looked bad to me
Click to expand...
Because it is a $3500 mirrorless hybrid camera.
 
It is strange. I think it is odd that the Sony LUT I applied looked the worst for color. But, as you stated, it seems that with a solid LUT the footage is easily transformed. So this camera appears to need to some research on finding the best LUT for the look one is after. Unlike the Canon where it is solid right out of the gate. But, it is very easy to apply a LUT, so no issue. By the time this camera is released, Canon will have probably spoken about the R5 situation. So I am going to be patient. Who knows, I might get one of each instead of two of one. I have been waiting for this upgrade for quite a few years, so I can wait a bit longer.
 
The advantage of the A7sIII for those that don't own a C3003, is the DR.
50224010431_9e1c779cea_z.jpg

The A7s3 would also clip, but would clip with more grace.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top