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

It's important to listen to what everyone has to say about everything.

I admire JB and all of his knowledge, but that explanation is better suited for someone who has the same goal in life of retaining detail in candle lights.
 
Beauty is in the eye of the beholder. But there's a reason why visually sensitive people make it as DPs and others don't.

But realistically, we're making generalizations that are too broad to be useful. I'm happy to blow out practicals and highlights. Sometimes it's the best choice. To say that they should always be clipped or always be retained is poppycock.

But gaping white holes with sharp outlines in the image where the human eye would see detail usually suck bigtime and would be prettier if properly exposed, whether or not the average viewer is consciously aware of that
 
NorBro said:
Are you supporting my thoughts?...I'm the one saying they are fine. :)

Although I don't know how many times productions actually make an effort to include blown areas on purpose. Like...if you require overexposure, you can create it and fine-tune it in post.

If they add to the production, that's fine - but I don't obsess about light bulbs or candles being blown out under normal circumstances. People are so focused on the talent and a good story and the camera movement and audio and everything else, it's the last thing anyone sees.

There is a difference between perfection...and just a waste of time because the "art" of the craft has affected common sense.
Click to expand...

Yes. If you're being paid to obsess then I think deciding what to let clip and when to put your foot down to avoid clipping is a skill worth spending time on. But if there won't be serious repercussions and it's your own creative choice then who cares.

Unless we're talking about different things, blown out areas in the form of adding lights to the backgrounds and deep backgrounds happen all the time. Exposure still gets fine tuned in post but whether it's retained detail or clipped is less important than getting a hot spot in the frame. Out of focus bar lighting, fake sun through trees, part of a wall being hit are just some examples where a blown highlight can look better than no added light.
 
How's this scene for everyone? Did they do okay with the candles and plates and other practicals?

 
ahalpert said:
Ultimately, one wants options. It's better to have a camera that can retain the highlight if desired. You can always clip it in post or with a more contrasty profile. If the camera has insufficient DR, then you only have one option.

Furthermore, it's always going to look ugly to have a sharp outline at the edge of the clipped part of the frame. That visual effect will find very little demand. Your Radiohead example has a much smoother/softer effect to the overexposure transitions
Click to expand...

If the camera has insufficient DR, you have three options - preserved highlights, clipped highlights and somewhere in between.

Would you take a camera that has more DR but couldn't have a thing done to exposure in post or a camera with less DR that lets you manipulate the image to a point?

I bet some DPs would LOVE a camera that didn't allow for a single thing to be done in post yet had the ability to bake in an incredible image as long as they nailed everything in camera.

The moral of the story is feel free to overexpose as long as you're doing it with the most expensive camera you have access to.

I've gone completely off the rails here! Back to the a7s iii...
 
rob norton said:
Would you take a camera that has more DR but couldn't have a thing done to exposure in post or a camera with less DR that lets you manipulate the image to a point?
Click to expand...

I'm having a devil of a time following you, but I think you're saying that you'd like to exert control over the look instead of the editor and you worry that a flat file hands the keys off to someone else. Something like that?

Or just that a pretty image is more important than a technically perfect one? But the two aren't mutually exclusive
 
Last edited:
ahalpert said:
I'm having a devil of a time following you, but I think you're saying that you'd like to exert control over the look instead of the editor and you worry that a flat file hands the keys off to someone else. Something like that?
Click to expand...

I like to make my bed with creative decisions ahead of time rather than going for a larger volume of weaker coverage for the sake of having more options. Except I don't know how much DR relates to permanent creative choices ahead of time. So ignore me, I was just throwing out a lame hypothetical.

As a percentage, I charge way more for shooting than editing (and love shooting, where as editing is WORK) so if it were up to me I'd spend as much time as possible getting it as close the final image in camera and less time doing post.

But maybe this way is impossible for the best image - sometimes I'm blown away by before and after grades with multiple windows and subtle gradients etc.
 
NorBro said:
How's this scene for everyone? Did they do okay with the candles and plates and other practicals?

Click to expand...

The thing is - they DID do a good job with all those details. They exposed them all exactly where they wanted them. And it wasn't a matter of "just letting them go"

But you're right- dynamic range is overrated.

That's why ARRI went out of business. I tried to tell them years ago that they should focus on more megapixels or making a cheaper camera, but they wouldn't listen.
 
rob norton said:
But maybe this way is impossible for the best image - sometimes I'm blown away by before and after grades with multiple windows and subtle gradients etc.
Click to expand...

I relate to everything you're saying.

But as to your last paragraph - that's the thing: it's all about control and achieving your goal. If the best way to do that is in camera, or at least for some elements, then do that. If you can get a more exact or nuanced result in post, or save time on set that leads to getting more shots that you need, then maybe that's best.

I believe that Deakins did his first DI on O Brother and the process was instrumental in shaping the colors they way they wanted. I think he said that one of the reasons he basically always shoots digital today is because he can have more control over the final result, and has actually run into lab problems on his last film projects because the infrastructure has diminished.

But the key thing is really figuring out WHAT you want, whether that happens in prep, during shooting, or in post. If you don't have a strong desire to see and show something, then how are you going to make anyone else feel something and what is it going to matter?

Once you know what you want, you should do whatever it takes.

I'm considering putting together a movie entirely using Unreal Engine, for example. My first choice? No
 
ahalpert said:
I relate to everything you're saying.

But as to your last paragraph - that's the thing: it's all about control and achieving your goal. If the best way to do that is in camera, or at least for some elements, then do that. If you can get a more exact or nuanced result in post, or save time on set that leads to getting more shots that you need, then maybe that's best.

I believe that Deakins did his first DI on O Brother and the process was instrumental in shaping the colors they way they wanted. I think he said that one of the reasons he basically always shoots digital today is because he can have more control over the final result, and has actually run into lab problems on his last film projects because the infrastructure has diminished.

But the key thing is really figuring out WHAT you want, whether that happens in prep, during shooting, or in post. If you don't have a strong desire to see and show something, then how are you going to make anyone else feel something and what is it going to matter?

Once you know what you want, you should do whatever it takes.

I'm considering putting together a movie entirely using Unreal Engine, for example. My first choice? No
Click to expand...

Good points! I'd watch your UE movie.
 
This one looks nice. Good natural color grade and he constantly highlights how good the dynamic range is. He also provides raw clips to play with at home but I haven’t tried them out yet.

 
Yes, I found that one yesterday and downloaded the footage. This camera has a lot to offer. The color is pleasing in his grade. I think it would take a while to really dial in your color with this camera. I downloaded an official Sony s-LOG3 LUT and it was a decent starting point. The greens needed some red/magenta imho but it is tough to know what the camera can give without having it to adjust & setup.

The list of other A7sIII videos in his description is a pretty good compilation of video examples. The IJustine video has some very good "normal video" type looks in it with nice skin tones and saturated color. I keep going back and forth between this and the Canon.
 
So now I'm waiting to hear what the FX6 is going to be before I commit... I'd love it to be just an a7siii with eND, s-cinetone, XLRs and SDI (as well as HDMI raw out).
 
Yes, this one is probably 4k30fps 8-bit. But just out of curiosity, I had to look at Sony's history of trickling down features...

a7 - oct 2013 - 1080p, 8-bit AVCHD
a7R - oct 2013 - 1080p, 8-bit AVCHD
a6000 - feb 2014 - 1080p, 8-bit AVCHD
a7S - apr 2014 - 1080p 8-bit XAVC S internal, 4k 8-bit external, slog2
a7II - nov 2014 - 1080p 8-bit XAVC S internal, slog2
a7R II - jun 2015 - 4k 30fps 8-bit XAVC S, slog2
a6000 - jun 2015 - XAVC S firmware update
a7S II - sep 2015 - 4k 30fps 8-bit XAVC S, slog3
a6300 - feb 2016 - 4k 30fps 8-bit XAVC S, slog3
a6500 - oct 2016 - 4k 30fps 8-bit XAVC S, slog3
a7R III - oct 2017 - 4k 30fps 8-bit XAVC S, slog3
a7 III - feb 2018 - 4k 30fps 8-bit XAVC S, slog3
a7R IV - jul 2019 - 4k 30fps 8-bit XAVC S, slog3
a6600 - aug 2019 - 4k 30fps 8-bit XAVC S, slog3
a7S III - sep 2020 - 4k 60fps 10-bit XAVC S-I, slog3

I don't see a lot of artificial crippling. The a7 II got the XAVC-S codec because it was easy and possible, but not 4k external because the sensor couldn't be read fast enough. All cameras after the a7S II got slog3, including the a6300 and a6500. But not the a6100 so they do know how to artificially cripple things. But the things they don't have, they don't have them at all, and the things they have, they go almost everywhere.

I think it's too soon even for 10-bit in this new release, but it could happen. And I expect to see it in almost all of their cameras after that.
4k 60fps requires faster sensors so that will be on a select few so far. And it's actually easier on APS-C than on FF, so maybe there's an a6800 coming next year...
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top