ahalpert
Major Contributor
The additional overhead of XAVC compression? Wouldn't that slow things down, if anything?
Sony A7SIII = $3500, 10-bit 4K120p internal, 16-bit 4K60p RAW out
- Thread starter ahalpert
- Start date
The additional overhead of XAVC compression? Wouldn't that slow things down, if anything?
A7III mode 1, 2 for reading out twice as many pixels and 8 bit final, older Bionz processor.
Yes, thought that is what I was saying. IOW sensor can do 144.8 FPS, DP review said rolling shutter 7.7 ms which is 130 fps max. Difference is the processing overhead, i.e. XAVC processing slows down sensor read. I don't know if that's true, or if wait states are added between completed reads of the full sensor which would mean the opposite, RS should be faster than DP measured, i.e. 6.9 ms.
ahalpert
Major Contributor
I don't think any processing that happens after the sensor passes on its data will impact the readout speed of the sensor itself.
I get the impression that all the circuitry and processing of the sensor is self-contained, and the camera takes that component and plugs it into the image processing of the rest of the camera.
So, the readout speeds from a particular mode will not be impacted by downstream processing. And the downstream processing had better be happening in real-time anyway, or else you would be in a position of filling a buffer that would eventually need to be cleared (as is the case with rapid-fire stills shooting that has to pause to write to the memory card once the buffer is full)
ahalpert
Major Contributor
right at the end of the day, we could debate the bit-depth until we're all blue in the face. the results are all that really matters, and with some screw-ups in the processing chain, you could have terrible results from a 16-bit ADC. I'm mostly just curious about the implications of how much NR is going on
I can't wait to see S1H vs A7SIII ProRes RAW tests. even though i want a camera with good AF anyway, so the S1H is not really an option. but again, for the sake of my curiosity
Thomas Smet
Veteran
All I know is I have yet to meet a DSLR that doesn't do any NR on video. We don't need ProRes raw for this either. We have always been able to compare raw stills to video to see just how much processing is taking place on that sensor. While stills are not the same thing in a way they kind of are when looking at noise and shadow detail. Sure we may not see it as much in motion but that doesn't mean it isn't there and you can see how much the camera really does to the video. Just like every DSLR under the sun does some level of NR and processing when shooting jpeg stills. No encoder can handle raw level noise and yield decent compression.
This is why the workflow potential of the Pocket 4k and 6k using Braw still appeal more to me. No funny business in camera and you get about as pure of an image as one could want. If one is really that concerned about processing and NR in camera they should probably go for a true raw cinema camera and not mess around anymore with a camera that tries to be too many things at once. I say this as a loyal Panasonic user since before the GH1 who skipped the GH5 and GH5S and may even skip the next camera and move to BMD.
Looking at raw stills performance as well its interesting that the A7S despite only having 12MP isn't any cleaner than the Panasonic S1H. That really is one hell of a FF hybrid camera and I prefer the Varicam and full V-log look to Sony. If I absolutely had to have a FF DSLR I would likely go with the S1H before I did the A7S3. Considering the low light is clean up 256,000 and has decent resolution for stills I feel its a vastly better hybrid option that checks almost every box. Too bad I don't plan on ever spending that much on a DSLR ever again. I only prefer a DSLR for the ability to shoot professional stills as well and honestly I'm getting back to the point where I would prefer to just have two bodies now so one camera can stay dedicated to video and one dedicated for stills and not fart around with switching their purpose.
ahalpert
Major Contributor
Does anyone else get the feeling that Sony color science might be tuned for east Asian skin tone beauty standards? I was watching a LUT demo video for FS7/FX9 today with a Japanese woman with sort of porcelain-toned make-up and I thought...this is a totally different hue than Americans want when they hit the tanning booths
G
Guest
Guest
Yeah, I think as cameras got cheaper, clients want to pay less, but at the same time, we have to buy more cameras. SO, years ago, a Panasonic HPX might have been all you need, but now there is a weird expectation for soaring gimbals shots, so we all need to have some tiny gimbal and mirrorless setup. Then to get the edge, we might want to offer a drone. and at the end of the day we still need the more traditional ENG/EPK setup for long interviews and 16hr shoot days. So, despite cameras getting cheaper, I think that has been all offset by needing to buy more camera bodies.....
hence likely the reason so many lower budget tier people get so upset with the Cabal style tactics from Canikony. A lot of low end work has become available, and the mid tier stuff seems to have been spread so thin, that margins for cam ops are very competitive. So, there is this huge low end market that wants to not be artificially locked out by price.
When the 1DC came out, I was kind of hoping that MagicLantern would have been allowed to unlock the s35 HD raw, but Canon came down hard on that. Or the F5 raw being simply a software lockout, that some one found the virtual switch for.
It is somewhat maddening to have to wait 10years to get some basic features that were possible a decade ago... just for profit. Why anyone is brand loyal these days....
G
Guest
Guest
Sony and Zeiss tune for technically accurate.
S-cinetone is a departure for Sony, just like the Zeiss Supreme Radiance is a departure for Zeiss. The market has really responded to mojo.
I'm not sure that Sony traditionally is going for a beauty standard. Canon and Nikon more so adapted a style.
ahalpert
Major Contributor
But what is technically accurate? Is it how the eye sees the world? Whose eye? True objectivity/neutrality is impossible in this arena. You can have a theory of neutrality that you subscribe to and design by, but there will always be some subjective decisionmaking incorporated along the way. No?
G
Guest
Guest
Pursuing perfection is a bit of a subjective mindset, no?
combatentropy
Veteran
If the color emanating from the screen matches the color bouncing off the object in real life.
ahalpert
Major Contributor
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.
Last edited:
marvinhello
Well-known member
More A7S III footage from Jacques Crafford graded to match Alexa with CineMatch plugin:
puredrifting
Major Contributor
These frames look nice. But is there a place to see them in motion?
Teddy_Dem
Well-known member
This is the video with Jacques Crafford's original grade:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iFXJoHsymnA&t=1s
Bassman2003
Veteran
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!