Sony cameras and the "video look".
- Thread starter Simon Shasha
- Start date
Ruben/Sheri
Well-known member
LOL funny how everyone is pushing for digital ,4k, higher frame-rates, etc ,and yet they want it too look like film?? To me film will always have a unique feel and look to it, and digital has it's own charm. BM is good for a first gen product, the dynamic range is incredible and to shoot raw or prores amazing, but what kills it for me is, ISO limitations, frame rates limitation, sensor size, witch I believe most movies are tied to Super 35 look, also the built in battery useless in the field, no Hdmi out or in, lack of tests and footage, no ND filters, probably not good in low light, not very versatile, and in the end with accessories etc.. It will come out costing as much as a FS100 or more IMO. The FS700 is a good all around pacage for what it has as well as the fs100, but as for that film look I don't get hung up on that because I know I'm shooting digital and that is what I expect it to look like. Digital 24p will never look like film 24fps, even arri and red look Digital and I like it because that's what it is Just IMO .
David W. Jones
Veteran
Give both the FS700, and the Blackmagic cine camera a year in the field and they will be just another camera, as something better/cheaper will pop up.
Technology is just moving right along!
Technology is just moving right along!
Ruben/Sheri
Well-known member
Tech is moving so fast the BM and FS700 will be obsolete in a year lol, just kidding... but might be true when u think about it hmm..
paulcurtis
Veteran
Well Nirvs got a valid point here Kholl,
There doesn't seem to be much interest in finding out why you feel one camera is better or worse than the other. You're very vocal about the FS being a problem, on the FS forum too, but it's all very subjective and all we're trying to do it to find out what's going on.
You know an awful lot of people tend to use very high shutter speeds on the FS because of no ND filters, i feel that this is lending a very stuttery look to a lot of test footage. That BM camera footage as Nirv pointed out doesn't.
Frankly the only way this would ever move on is if you tell us which camera works for you and then they're mounted together with one that doesn't and the same thing shot.
That would clear up an awful lot of subjectiveness.
I only have a FS100, EX1 and NEX5 which are all Sony, so i doubt you'd like any of those. I can get hold of a Canon dSLR - do you like those?
cheers
paul
There doesn't seem to be much interest in finding out why you feel one camera is better or worse than the other. You're very vocal about the FS being a problem, on the FS forum too, but it's all very subjective and all we're trying to do it to find out what's going on.
You know an awful lot of people tend to use very high shutter speeds on the FS because of no ND filters, i feel that this is lending a very stuttery look to a lot of test footage. That BM camera footage as Nirv pointed out doesn't.
Frankly the only way this would ever move on is if you tell us which camera works for you and then they're mounted together with one that doesn't and the same thing shot.
That would clear up an awful lot of subjectiveness.
I only have a FS100, EX1 and NEX5 which are all Sony, so i doubt you'd like any of those. I can get hold of a Canon dSLR - do you like those?
cheers
paul
What point does Nirv have? Between quoting me on things I never said and creating illusions as to why I and others feel the same way, I dont' see a point. I do get the sense that there's an unwarranted defensive line set up over a camera.
And, please do remember why I even bothered posting in this thread: you mentioned my name (and although jokingly, mused on the idea that I might be a shill) and, while I was following the topic, I would've never bothered posting otherwise because it was destined to head this way.
Here is my quote:
I'm not telling anyone here to move on. I said that eventually someone would come to tell me that I'm bashing the camera in some way when that isn't the case. When people's hearts are into something that far, you can easily predict where conversations will lead.
Well, does it matter what I like? There are at least five other people in this thread that can see what I see, two of them are FS100 owners, one is regarded as one of the most advanced FS100 owner/users.
It really isn't an argument, it's a pretty measurable discussion on the subtle (if subjective) difference in cadence/motion rendering between cameras with similar technology, and why that is. Where some participants can clearly see it, some cannot.
Even still, I've posted several times that if someone can't tell then they can't tell and it doesn't matter. If you're happy with what you're seeing, or anyone else, then what difference does it make? If you're trying to figure it out, then by all means compare with other cameras if you can and share your thoughts, as I think they'd be valuable to anyone that's confused or seeking some visual examples on the topic.
Personally, and as it goes... this is just me, the comparisons probably won't do much. I suspect they won't help anyone that doesn't already see it magically realize that it's there.
On the topic of shutter and ND: I had the camera for quite some time and I did what I could to fix the issue that I had with it. I've got ton of ND, I underexposed, everything. Nothing changed it.
I'm sorry if this comes off as someone disliking one person's camera of choice. It's come up in various different forums over the years, and had it been in any other forum I would've taken interest in it there.
Last edited:
Ruben/Sheri
Well-known member
YIKEs
Kyle McConaghy
Well-known member
I am a huge fan of the fs100... But not an award winning dp by any means. So take this for what it's worth: I do agree with Kholi. There is something ever so slightly less filmic about the fs100s motion than other large sensor cameras and dslrs. I think the fs100 is much better than the af100 in every regard other than the motion. Here is a great test by barry. The fs100 looks less natural to me, just in regards to motion. Everything is subjective but I tend to agree with Kholi.
Last edited:
and one day long into the future technology will eventually catch up with the look of film that was introduced how many years ago.........:grin:
Nirv
Carbonite Member
@Paul,
I see the stuttery motion of the BMCC and find it quite taxing to watch and when I watched it I assumed it was shot at a higher shutter speed. It appears it wasn't but the motion rendering probably contains a lot of aliasing that Sony and other manufacturers have filtered out. This aliasing in the BMCC is precisely the sort that the Tessive filter seeks to remove after all and not seen as desirable. If people want to shoot footage that all looks like Saving Private Ryan then that's their prerogative. They'd have to go to 360 deg shutter to get smoother motion but at the expense of more motion blur and the apparent softening of the image that would introduce.
I see the stuttery motion of the BMCC and find it quite taxing to watch and when I watched it I assumed it was shot at a higher shutter speed. It appears it wasn't but the motion rendering probably contains a lot of aliasing that Sony and other manufacturers have filtered out. This aliasing in the BMCC is precisely the sort that the Tessive filter seeks to remove after all and not seen as desirable. If people want to shoot footage that all looks like Saving Private Ryan then that's their prerogative. They'd have to go to 360 deg shutter to get smoother motion but at the expense of more motion blur and the apparent softening of the image that would introduce.
Sorry, maybe I missed this, but which camera is which on this test? I assume FS100 is first due to the title of the video but... I prefer the second, personally.
Kyle McConaghy
Well-known member
Yeah, the FS100 is the first. And, I agree, in this setting, the AF100 looks better. On a big screen or without this nice light setup, the FS100 would probably still be the way to go. But the Af100 looks better here, IMO. Still glad I got the FS100 instead.
Kyle - you bring up SUCH a good point. The big screen. I've been looking at SO many camera tests and shootouts on my 24" monitor and thinking a certain camera looks better then another. I saw the recent Zacuto Revenge shoot out and was awe struck. The FS100 looked great! Better than the C300, even. The 7D looked unbelievably bad. We were all shocked at this to the point we were thinking that the DP shot it out of focus! So if you are planning on projecting any of these on the big screen, then that's where you really have to compare. If you are only doing commercials, shorts, or something that will only be on a TV, then you probably have more options. Anyway, just thought I would share my recent (obvious) revelation! 
jamesharding
Member
I can definitely see a noticeable difference in motion, and I think I like the AF100 better in that respect BUT the difference is not that great and more importantly, the FS100 still looks filmic and genuine, it's not as if its comparing handycam to film is it? The other aspects of the FS100 greatly outweigh the slight motion difference, and I expect without a comparison I would not notice anyway. But I'm merely a student so don't take my word for it 
Kyle McConaghy
Well-known member
You're totally right, James. The difference is very subtle. Just something to consider. I still think, motion oddness and all, the fs100 is still the best sub-$8000 option by a long shot. We'll debate that further when the bmcc is released.
Chris Johnston
Veteran
I watched it numerous times. I see some exposure differences, some color differences, but motion? ehhh...
I do see an actress with an obviously bad take on the first shot and a much better take on the second, which might contribute to subconciously thinking
the first one isn't as good??? (not to mention the exposure on the second is better)
ps, I ain't drinkin no kool aid and if the emperor comes around, I'll tell him he's butt naked.
I do see an actress with an obviously bad take on the first shot and a much better take on the second, which might contribute to subconciously thinking
the first one isn't as good??? (not to mention the exposure on the second is better)
ps, I ain't drinkin no kool aid and if the emperor comes around, I'll tell him he's butt naked.
paulcurtis
Veteran
You originally posted because you saw an issue with the motion cadence that affected your decision to use the camera. Some others have chimed in agreeing. A very valid opinion and post.
I simply want to know what you're seeing and whether it is a purely subjective issue on your part or whether it is something tangible. It's been very difficult to get a sense beyond you just saying it doesn't seem right to you. If if there is something that can be quantified then why, and what (if anything) can be done about it.
I seem to remember not so long ago how the firmware 2.0 'changed all the results of the camera'. But it didn't, it was purely wishful thinking and any tests showed that. When you start telling people that there's something going on, suddenly some start 'seeing it'. Our vision is very subjective. I like to back it up with something quantifiable, then i can be sure what the rest of the audience that isn't aware of any conversations might end up seeing.
And i'd like to measure it, if it's measurable. And about the only way i can think of it to put a camera that you feel doesn't exhibit this with one that does and shoot the same footage. Perhaps even as a blind test. Hence the question about what cameras you feel 'do it right'
If it's something that only a few people see then what's the problem, are you shooting for your own personal use or for an audience? If most people can't see it then where's the issue. If it's obvious enough to take away from the subject matter then it is a huge issue. Perhaps you're using the camera in a situation i'm not and then this issue creeps up. I couldn't care less about cameras really, i'm in a period of doing 'due-dilligance' on this one for use on a fairly sizeable project, hence the nitpicking. I don't want to be in a situation i haven't anticipated.
cheers
paul
paulcurtis
Veteran
The FS vs AF is a good video, i'd like to know whether the settings were exactly the same, i don't know where it's from. But either shot (aside from the acting!) in a film would not draw the audience out of the story and that's the point. I'd allow either version technically to make a cut. The second is a much better take in terms of motion anyway, the drinking at the beginning and not having the guy walk across in the background is a better choice. So there are elements of subconscious preference going on too. I'd be interested if a series of shots were made and jumbled up whether anyone could tell what cam was what.
cheers
paul
cheers
paul
I disagree vehemently. The AF100 moves slower in that test, so naturally it looks slightly more cinematic.
Same motion = exactly alike, both cams.