Sony NEX FS700-4K?

Danielvilliers said:
The problem is not when you will get the upgrade but in what form and more importantly the cost. Many are saying, hey the scarlet or red are in trouble etc. etc. having a 4k camera for less than $ 10k. But you might find yourself with a $ 4000 firmware, $ 10 000 recorder and media in the thousand of dollars to be able to do it. Everyone should stop referring this camera as a 4k raw one until the whole picture is unveiled. So please this is an upgrade to the FS-100, 8 bit 1080p camera with super slow motion and ND wheels and perhaps better DR for now.
Click to expand...

Plus One!
 
hendosan said:
There's a lot of hot air amounting to nothing, and it certainly doesn't address what specifically makes these 16mm format DIGITAL cameras different than other digital cameras of different formats.
Click to expand...

hendosan said:
I would like to know what this "organic" look is because to me everything officially posted is underexposed by a stop, the lighting is horrible, and the grading is horrible.
Click to expand...

Great. You should have no trouble at all then posting some similarly "underexposed, badly lit, and badly graded" CMOS footage that looks like the following:





Can't wait to see what you come up with!
 
arroway? No production notes on the three clips you cited? Also no clear indication of your meaning in response to hendosan's pull quotes?
I should interject that I make a clear distinction between the use and marshaling of available light and the use of supplemental illumination and totally artificial illumination.
Positioning your camera, actors and props in relation to natural/available light isn't strictly 'Lighting' though it is part of light design. Lighting proper is how you use reflectors, artificial lights and in post, filters to evoke a certain theme in the scene.
'Organic' is about natural lighting on natural living subjects, unmodified in any manner, not even with contrived reflectors. It alludes to the 'carbon' nature of life so there are no organic references to non-carbon based elements.
Cinematographically, organic is about low or high key- the rough-hewn, unfinished and unpolished, camera shaken, vignetted,mistaken focus, grimy and gritty and grainy look and feel of a scene.In post it's about horror movie style editing and transitions and efx.
It's useful if you're shooting a Hobbit scene but not for shooting a corporate video ;)
 
Zephyrnoid said:
arroway? No production notes on the three clips you cited?
Click to expand...

What information are you missing? All three were shot with the Ikonoskop A-cam dii.

Zephyrnoid said:
Also no clear indication of your meaning in response to hendosan's pull quotes?
Click to expand...

I thought it was pretty clear. Hendosan snidely remarked that he doesn't think the Ikonoskop has a uniquely organic look (as many others profess).

I provided examples of the footage in question and asked him to find me some CMOS footage that had the same feel.

A week ago, I asked another poster to do the same, after he said that the Ikonosop's "look" was just a matter of post-processing.

Neither of these critics have deigned to provide any evidence for their opinions.

Interpret that however you want.
 
Thinking about the metabones nex-ef adapter... This cam is really gonna be awesome.
NABs a few more days away!
 
arroway said:
What information are you missing? All three were shot with the Ikonoskop A-cam dii.



I thought it was pretty clear. Hendosan snidely remarked that he doesn't think the Ikonoskop has a uniquely organic look (as many others profess).

I provided examples of the footage in question and asked him to find me some CMOS footage that had the same feel.

A week ago, I asked another poster to do the same, after he said that the Ikonosop's "look" was just a matter of post-processing.

Neither of these critics have deigned to provide any evidence for their opinions.

Interpret that however you want.
Click to expand...

You should learn to read posts better because I said like, none of that. Wasn't even talking about the Ikonoskop at all.
 
hendosan, here are the two statements you yourself quoted then subsequently commented upon:

Comment #1:

arroway said:
Is there any footage you can point me to, so as to corroborate this assertion that the A-cam's "look" is just a matter of CC?

To my eye, there is a uniquely organic characteristic to almost all of the A-cam footage I've seen, and I have not yet come across any CMOS footage that replicates it.
Click to expand...

You'll notice it mentions the A-cam...twice.

And your snide reply:

hendosan said:
I would like to know what this "organic" look is because to me everything officially posted is underexposed by a stop, the lighting is horrible, and the grading is horrible.
Click to expand...

Comment #2:

cane said:
Go to the site of ikonoskop a-cam and download some raw cinema dng files and see what you can do.
There is no need adjust the white balance on the camera.

Organic is a term what the filmmaker means what you see in analog camera's that's why most big filmmakers still shoot there films with the camera's from the same technology from 100 years ago.
That's the reason why we want close the gap with that analog camera, the companies as Ikonoskop-dBolex-etc etc..they see the difference and what they are missing with the digital camera's on the mark and try to make a products with other philosophy.
It's not always the pixels or light sensibility that counts.
My passion is film so I take the time to shoot best offer footage and this take's me sometimes 5 hour to shoot a 15 sec footage..
I want to shoot so close as get to the analog camera's and I know I can't get offer that kind of camera's.
I'm happy with the companies as Dbolex and Ikonoskop they makes it possible to reach mine dreams get closer
If you say it's only matter of grading sadly then you mission something according to the film
Click to expand...

You'll notice it mentions "A-cam/Ikonoskop"...four times.

And your snide reply:

hendosan said:
There's a lot of hot air amounting to nothing, and it certainly doesn't address what specifically makes these 16mm format DIGITAL cameras different than other digital cameras of different formats.
Click to expand...

So after making two juvenile comments in direct response to two quoted statements which explicitly mention the Ikonoskop a combined total of SIX TIMES you now insist you "weren't even even talking about the Ikonoskop at all"?


...


LOL

hendosan said:
You should learn to read posts better...
Click to expand...

Sweet, sweet, irony...
 
A few less educated questions,

How much does this camera weigh? I've read various reviews but have yet to see specs saying the weight of the camera. Being the body only or with attachments.

This camera contains an E-mount. With a Canon E-mount adapter will any Canon lens work correctly? Does a CMOS sensor work like a ASP-C sensor or FF; or either?
 
I would add about 300 gramms to the FS100s weight.

Canon lenses will work correctly with an electronic adapter. Both Sensors are CMOS. Canon APS-C has a crop factor of 1,6, FS100 has 1,5. FS700 should be the same.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top