Sony cameras and the "video look".

S

Simon Shasha

Well-known member
Time and time again, I've heard countless people say that Sony cameras suffer from the "video look". Shane Hurlbut said the same thing to me when I asked him his thoughts on the FS700 via his blog - he said Sony make good news and sports cameras, but not good cinematic cameras (I'd link you guys to the blog, it was the "C300 vs Alexa" blog-post, but he seems to have deleted it?).

Now, I've seen some pretty cinematic looking videos come out of the FS100 (Philip Bloom's 'Portrait of a Boxer' for example), but I have also seen some extremely "home-videoish" looking stuff too - however, I have seen cinematic and "home-videoish" stuff coming from the C300 and RED cameras also.

Of course, the camera isn't everything - lighting and art-direction contribute perhaps more than anything to giving a film a cinematic feel. However, narrowing in strictly of the visual aesthetics of Sony cameras alone, would you guys say that Sony cameras suffer from the "video look", or is it more to do with the person behind the camera? I personally go with the latter - I believe it is the person behind the camera - and I say this with conviction due to recently watching 'Another Earth' (shot on the Sony EX3) and 'Monsters' (also shot on the Sony EX3). Speaking of which, 'Another Earth' had a really cool 16mm vibe to it.

Anyway, what do you guys think; do Sony cameras suffer from the "video look", or is it more to do with the person behind the camera?
 
From my experience with my FS100, Sony definitely has it's own unique look. It's not a bad look in my opinion, you just have to know how to use the right lens/lighting combiniation for your desired look. In other words it's not the car, it's the nut behind the wheel.
 
Isn't Shane on Canons payroll? If so then I would take it with a grain of salt if not then I would have asked for clarification as to what he meant.

Great DOP so I mean no disrespect by this question... I just find the big companies have so many 'spokesmen' in the industry its hard to tell what is honest opinion and what is someones allegiance to a brand.
 
well the sony f3 is only bettered by its bigger brother and the alexa. they look almost as good as film.
 
richg101 said:
... they look almost as good as film.
Click to expand...

Film? I forgot what film even looks like. The line for me was "The Avengers." It was on this forum that I found out it was shot on the Alexa.. Outside of that nobody else could have told me it wasn't shot on film.

As far as the comments about Sony looking like digital cameras....I always thought the same. But if one doesn't color correct like they are supposed to...then...shame on them. Out of the box I think the Sony's just look cooler (I mean the color seems coolish vs Panasonics warmish and often greenish type of look). Every camera has their disticnt look...out-of-the-box. Add a good colorist to the mix and none would be the wiser. IMO
 
FS700 seems more cinematic than fs100 maybe it's just the new censor , but to me at the end of the day they are all digital cameras trying to replicate film, so of course they are going to have some sort of digital look, but I do believe
it's how u use it rather than the camera it self, I guess it's all subjective..
 
Last edited:
If you want an s35 sensor, onboard XLR and no crazy moiree (5d2) or softness to eliminate that moiree (5d3) and less than $10k I doint think you have an option that is not Sony apart from the Af100

If you have a bunch of cash you can get a Sony F65 which I guess is as filmic as any digital camera..

So really its just a pointless forum discussion unless you are evaluating C300 Vs F3, cameras that I would personally avoid as I feel Id put the money towards a Red at that level

S
 
As long as we have no mechanical shutter, it will always look a bit videoish.
I think it´s more in the motion than in the emulsion simulation.
SO the F65 is as close as you can get in the moment and from what I saw so far, even closer than the Alexa.

Frank
 
To be honest, having watched Sony F3 and AF100 footage side-by-side, I must say: Sony feels more like "cinema" out of the box. And the Sony was shooting at 25i... don't ask, no one wanted to listen to me... but it was proof enough for me.
 
Simon Shasha said:
TShane Hurlbut said the same thing to me when I asked him his thoughts on the FS700 via his blog - he said Sony make good news and sports cameras, but not good cinematic cameras (I'd link you guys to the blog, it was the "C300 vs Alexa" blog-post, but he seems to have deleted it?).
Click to expand...

Shane also said that the 1DC was better then any camera out there including the alexa........ -_-

I've seen plenty of "cinematic" pieces shot on the FS-100.
 
I've been researching like crazy the last month or so as I've been trying to decide between the Sony FS 700 or the Canon 5D3. After watching about 1000 vimeo videos (and yes, you can get a good sense of the how the camera looks from Vimeo contrary to what many people say), I like the look of the FS and find it equally cinematic as the Canons. Plus, the increased resolution.... on wide landscape type shots, the FS cameras are MILES ahead of the 5D3. You can easily tell this even from Vimeo videos, so I can't image how much sharper the actual footage is. The only edge I can spot to the 5D3 is on close-ups of people due to full frame, and even that is subjective.

This guy's (Cody Cha) FS100 films really sold me on the FS over the 5D3. He gets a really great, cinematic look out of the FS100. He's obviously good at grading. The thing is, he's an FS100 shooter and also a Canon shooter.

https://vimeo.com/codycha

Cody wrote: "Though I also prefer Canon colors, it hasn't been too much of issue since I grade all of my footage. Also, FS100 footage holds up much better, and I never felt like I couldn't get the colors I wanted in the post.."

I think out of the box, the Canon footage might look better, but I'm a crazy grader and no footage goes un-graded, so for me, I'm probably going with the FS700 when it comes out. I was really hoping to like the Canon 5D3 better since I have mostly Canon lenses and I like the small DSLR form factor, so I was really biased towards Canon at the start, but after all this research and watching tons of footage, I've reluctantly changed my mind.
 
Honestly off vimeo and viewing prores - and I have been editing both together today - all day - the Canons (5d2 in this case) are pretty unusably soft in comparison to the Sony..

S
 
RatLabProductions said:
Isn't Shane on Canons payroll? If so then I would take it with a grain of salt if not then I would have asked for clarification as to what he meant.
Click to expand...

Besides the publicity Canon doesn't compensate it's "Expolorers of Light" well. I believe Shane's just expressing his opinion, & his business model is not based on shilling for any manufacturer.

Full disclosure: I've worked with Shane, & at different times we each held the position as Gaffer for Herb Ritts.
 
gene_can_sing said:
I've been researching like crazy the last month or so as I've been trying to decide between the Sony FS 700 or the Canon 5D3. After watching about 1000 vimeo videos (and yes, you can get a good sense of the how the camera looks from Vimeo contrary to what many people say), I like the look of the FS and find it equally cinematic as the Canons. Plus, the increased resolution.... on wide landscape type shots, the FS cameras are MILES ahead of the 5D3. You can easily tell this even from Vimeo videos, so I can't image how much sharper the actual footage is. The only edge I can spot to the 5D3 is on close-ups of people due to full frame, and even that is subjective.

This guy's (Cody Cha) FS100 films really sold me on the FS over the 5D3. He gets a really great, cinematic look out of the FS100. He's obviously good at grading. The thing is, he's an FS100 shooter and also a Canon shooter.

https://vimeo.com/codycha

Cody wrote: "Though I also prefer Canon colors, it hasn't been too much of issue since I grade all of my footage. Also, FS100 footage holds up much better, and I never felt like I couldn't get the colors I wanted in the post.."

I think out of the box, the Canon footage might look better, but I'm a crazy grader and no footage goes un-graded, so for me, I'm probably going with the FS700 when it comes out. I was really hoping to like the Canon 5D3 better since I have mostly Canon lenses and I like the small DSLR form factor, so I was really biased towards Canon at the start, but after all this research and watching tons of footage, I've reluctantly changed my mind.
Click to expand...

Cody does some incredible work. Listen closely to what he said there - he definitely knows his cameras. I contacted him last year when mulling the F3 vs. C300 question. I was lucky to be able to go for the C300 and am thrilled with the results I'm getting. But if I were limited to $5-9k, the FS100/700 would be the only way to go for me (and my Canon lenses!). The FS100 is almost too good to be true price-wise.
 
I cannot believe there's a market for 5D3s, D800s and D4s et al with the FS100 on the market and the FS700 soon to be available. By the time you've tricked out a DSLR to make almost usable you've still only got a camera that shoots SD for a similar price to the FS100. IMHO, Canon signalled the end of the DSLR revolution with the very disappointing 5D3, the C300 must not have its toes stepped on, 'cuz who wants to sharpen footage in post to make it just about usable? Not me.

There are some people who are convinced that buying a particular camera will make them a "Cinematographer or DP" without the necessary investment in time learning the skills. These people are generally very receptive to marketing and the ease at which social media connects them with industry "names" and gurus only prey on their susceptibility. You can even see little peer pressure groups forming on Twitter where a particular brand is either singled out for praise or rejection and fools just follow the herd.

I would have more faith in the internet gurus who endlessly review cameras if just once they turned round and said, just forget DSLRs buy a real video camera like the AF100 or FS100/FS700. Why don't they ever say that? That is after all, one of the most obvious conclusions to make about current DSLRs.

You can give anyone a F65 and it won't make them a competent cinematographer. Cinematography is about the total art of image capture from choice of lens, framing, DoF, focus, camera moves and lighting etc etc and cannot be just bought off the shelf. The "video look" comes from the bloke holding the camera not the camera.

I've seen on here when a great bit of FS100 video gets posted you can bet your house someone will ask what picture profile was used as if it was the profile that made all the difference! No it was the bloke holding the camera that made the difference and how s/he chose to light the scene, or more correctly, how s/he controlled the light entering the lens. No quick fix I'm afraid.

What the FS100 represents is a cost effective way to begin learning the art. It's a camera that combined with an external recorder that can compete with HDCams from a few years ago at a fraction of the cost. It can give much more expensive contemporary cameras a run for its money too. I don't think there is a better way into learning the art and I don't think there is a bigger bang for buck for professional work either which is why I bought one and not a Scarlet or C300.

We've seen in other threads that the camera gets the blame for the lack of talent of the person holding the camera. It's easy to blame the camera for sensor reflections and the fact that it's 8 bit and doesn't grade as well as RAW or real log footage. I have no doubt that these same people would be looking for excuses even if they had 10 F65s and $60,000 lenses too.

Sorry that turned into a bit of a rant and I didn't mean it too.
 
Last edited:
Bern Caughey said:
Besides the publicity Canon doesn't compensate it's "Expolorers of Light" well. I believe Shane's just expressing his opinion, & his business model is not based on shilling for any manufacturer.

Full disclosure: I've worked with Shane, & at different times we each held the position as Gaffer for Herb Ritts.
Click to expand...

Thanks for the correction. I love his work but I found some of the hyperbole that comes from him for new Canon and only Canon cameras a little over the top which made me suspect. I guess we should all be as enthusiastic about our work. To me a lot of what he gets out of a camera has to do with his knowledge/skill/talent/experience not the camera in his hands.

I am really looking forward to the new Zacuto shootout. I love the premise that no one camera is perfect and its through knowledge and experience that you learn how to get the best image out of each. The fact that the GH2 was a surprise to many on the blind test just goes to show that it isn't the camera that limits our creativity anymore.

Full disclosure: I'm a post guy (producer editor 10yrs) getting into shooting/generating my own content (it really is freeing). It is just a hobby for me at this point so I will always defer to the 90% here who have more knowledge and experience.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top