Which camera can do this? Is A7s the only option?

[stoppingby]

Which camera can match these video stills - especially regarding the skin details on her right cheek, and the way her skin tones gradually fade from light to dark?

The screenshots come from this YouTube video, shot on A7s/Otus/Atomos Shogun: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PU3XsnZ5KFc

I ask because I'm going to buy the sharpest and most dynamic camera/85mm-lens combo that I can get for approx $7-8,000. I primarily need it for video, but would prefer if it could be used for stills, as well. I'm only going to use it in controlled environments, so low-light performance is not important. I don't need 4k either, but I do need clean HDMI out to an external monitor during recording.

So I decided to get a D810 and a Zeiss Otus 85mm. And I still think that may be the best solution.

But I keep looking at these A7s screenshots. I've watched hundreds of videos this month, and I still haven't found anything like them. And I just don't understand why: A7s footage in general doesn't look anything like this, and I haven't seen any proof that Atomos Shogun makes any real difference either. Also, I watched the YouTube video in 1080p, so 4k shouldn't be relevant.

So is it just a matter of better glass? Or perhaps you get some kind of special symbiotic magic when you mix A7s, Otus lens and Atomos Shogun?

It would be great if a D810/Otus combination could do it. It's so beautiful and crystal clear for stills, and I really don't want an A7s.

But then again, all the Nikon videos I've seen so far have these wax-like skin tones, as opposed to the details and smooth color transitions in this video...

 

[David W. Jones]

What makes you think the camera is doing all the heavy lifting here, rather than the person using the camera and doing the lighting?

I honestly don't see anything magical about it.

If I were you, I would make a short list, and rent the cameras you are interested in rather than polling the internet to see what others may think about a camera they may or may not have used. That way you know first hand before you drop $8K on a camera.

All the best!

Dave

 

[TheDingo]

Keep in mind that this is a lit shot, so that you can adjust the contrast and lighting ratios to match the dynamic range of the camera your are shooting with. ( the lighting is far more important to achieving this look than the camera is )

 

[DLD]

If the purpose is to pull the still frames off a video clip, then it'd be pretty hard to beat A7RII and its 15 MPX 4K oversampling. Even if it's only 8-bit out. FS5, at some point, will have Raw out and may come in at around $7,500 (without the Otus lens, obviously). URSA has Raw out already but its 4.6 version isn't shipping yet. Finally, one can get, as I was reminded a couple of days ago, the 1080p Raw cameras like the BMD Pocket or an ML version of 5D MKIII.

The above are based on specs (and my own non-Zacuto, aka YouTube shootout/YouTube viewing experience) . Personal preferences will always vary.

As others have mentioned, this linked clip is all a custom job - from lighting to makeup.

PS. Most A7SII early owners seem to prefer that to the original.

 

[stoppingby]

What makes you think the camera is doing all the heavy lifting here, rather than the person using the camera and doing the lighting?

There's nothing special about the lighting, it's just a gear question - and this is a gear forum, yes?

I honestly don't see anything magical about it.

Then I'm sure you can link to a video that will match it?

Personally, I haven't seen any videos shot on semi-pro gear reach this level of details. But you may want to watch the YouTube clip, it's hard to tell from the png's.

polling the internet to see what others may think

I'm not particularly interested in what others may think, it'd just be nice if somebody perhaps could link to some footage in similar quality - or explain why this specific combo can do what others can't.

 

[stoppingby]

If the purpose is to pull the still frames off a video clip, then it'd be pretty hard to beat A7RII and its 15 MPX 4K oversampling. Even if it's only 8-bit out. FS5, at some point, will have Raw out and may come in at around $7,500 (without the Otus lens, obviously). URSA has Raw out already but its 4.6 version isn't shipping yet.

Thank you for the suggestions. No, still frames are not the end purpose, they're just useful for comparing various cameras and lenses. And I did look at the options you mentioned, I just haven't seen any evidence that any A7 version can match the YouTube video by itself. That's why it keeps puzzling me.

I've looked at the various Blackmagic models as well, but they don't really appeal to me. I definitely understand why people like them, I just don't think it's me. Though I'd like to see more about URSA.

or an ML version of 5D MKIII.

Agree, that's an interesting option.

As others have mentioned, this linked clip is all a custom job - from lighting to makeup.

Well, I know what you mean, but there's really no way to 'fake' the details I was referring to in my first post.

PS. Most A7SII early owners seem to prefer that to the original.

Yes, I'll take a closer look at that, too...

 

[stoppingby]

the lighting is far more important to achieving this look than the camera is )

Well, I'm afraid I just don't agree - even the most elaborate lighting can't magically create this kind of image details if the camera can't reproduce them.

And I haven't seen any evidence that A7s by itself can provide this quality. I honestly think, this video is a step up from anything else I've seen in that price range. I just wish there were another way to get there than to buy an A7.

 

[David W. Jones]

Which is why I suggested renting the cameras your are interested in. To test for yourself. That way you are the limiting factor in your camera comparison rather than someone else's abilities.

 

[stoppingby]

Which is why I suggested renting the cameras your are interested in.

And that's a very good suggestion.

Unfortunately, cameras take forever to become available for rent in my country - I can't even rent a D810 yet, haha. So the only option would be to rent from another country, which leads to all kinds of customs/taxes issues.

So I usually rely on YouTube/Vimeo...

 

[TheDingo]

Well, I'm afraid I just don't agree - even the most elaborate lighting can't magically create this kind of image details if the camera can't reproduce them.

I would agree when it comes to resolution because if the detail isn't there then you can't invent it, but there are so many non-DSLR cameras that can produce a sharp and detailed 1080 HD or 4K image.

When it comes to dynamic range then having lighting that is tuned to the dynamic range of the recording media makes all the difference. Before the digital age most magazine and billboard shots were made with reversal transparency film that had a dynamic range between 7-9 F-stops, yet with proper lighting you could fairly easily produce gorgeous looking shots from this limited dynamic range.

This was only possible because you have complete control of your lighting when shooting in a studio. As soon as you stepped outside into sunlight then you had to deal with very wide lighting ratios, where even 14+ F-stops of dynamic range might not be enough to produce the shot you want without adding your own fill lighting.

 

[stoppingby]

there are so many non-DSLR cameras that can produce a sharp and detailed 1080 HD or 4K image.

May I ask which you would recommend? (Preferably a cheaper one than Arri Alexa... )

When it comes to dynamic range then having lighting that is tuned to the dynamic range of the recording media makes all the difference. Before the digital age most magazine and billboard shots were made with reversal transparency film that had a dynamic range between 7-9 F-stops, yet with proper lighting you could fairly easily produce gorgeous looking shots from this limited dynamic range.

This was only possible because you have complete control of your lighting when shooting in a studio.

I agree 100% - and one of the reasons there's so much detail @1:13 in the YouTube video, where I took the screenshots in my first post, is indeed that the hairlight/backlight becomes a side light as she turns around. That side light really makes her skin structure pop.

Another reason is that she's standing completely still for a moment. As soon as she moves again, her skin turns into the usual 'video-wax' or 'video-rubber'.

But these two points don't explain the crisp, almost still photo-like details at that exact moment. And it's not just her skin. Look at the eye lashes - they're razor sharp...

 

[DPStewart]

HELLO!???

Why has no one pointed out that this was shot with a $4,500 LENS!?!?

Good lord!
People have been shooting an A7s with a Shogun or O7Q+ for a year and we all know exactly what to expect out of it.
Same goes for a GH4 or BMCC or 5D mkiii with Magic Lantern.

It's the freakin' lens!

Seriously, you don't think a $4,500 Zeiss lens has a huge amount to do with this look?
That ultra-crisp detail you're seeing doesn't show up when you use that exact same camera and recorder with a lesser lens. People have shown that a thousand times over.

Lenses matter.

 

[stoppingby]

HELLO!???

Why has no one pointed out that this was shot with a $4,500 LENS!?!?

Good lord!
People have been shooting an A7s with a Shogun or O7Q+ for a year and we all know exactly what to expect out of it.
Same goes for a GH4 or BMCC or 5D mkiii with Magic Lantern.

It's the freakin' lens!

Seriously, you don't think a $4,500 Zeiss lens has a huge amount to do with this look?

Well, that was my theory in the first place!

In fact, I found that YouTube clip because I was searching for Otus videos (I was planning to buy a D810-Otus combination).

But do I think the Otus has a huge amount to do with the look in that video?

I honestly don't know anymore. It certainly has a huge (and stunning) influence on still photos.

However, I recently found a video shoot-out between various 85mm's and there's really not much to say in favor of the Otus here, except for a pretty modest improvement regarding aberrations: https://vimeo.com/105732432 (And it's not because the uploader didn't understand the lens; you can read his Otus review here: https://matthewduclos.wordpress.com/2014/09/10/zeiss-85mm-f1-4-otus-reviewed/)

EDIT: I realized just now that the Canon lens that did almost as well as the Otus in the test above was a $4,950 CN-E T1.3 L F Cine lens! (I thought it was the usual f/1.2 Canon!) But one of the other lenses in the test - a $300 Rokinon - didn't perform that bad, either...

That ultra-crisp detail you're seeing doesn't show up when you use that exact same camera and recorder with a lesser lens. People have shown that a thousand times over.

Exactly - and that's why I also asked in the local Nikon forum if anybody had video-experiences with the Nikon-Otus combination. For the life of me, I can't imagine that you need an A7 for this; I still hope you can achieve similar results with what I feel is a more serious camera. But I haven't got any replies so far. (I also asked Zeiss, but their responses were pretty much useless.)

At any rate, I feel this is worth looking into. Because, yes, $4,500 for a lens may seem insane, but what if it can make your DSLR compete with video cameras in an entirely different price range? That's what the Otus did to still cameras after all.

 

[stoppingby]

OK, this is getting worse! :violent5:

I just found the videographer's website, and these are actual frames from the video (NOT still photos!):

http://i1.wp.com/www.nakedpixel.ro/wp-content/uploads/2015/05/experienta-zeiss-otus-1-485-021.jpg
http://i2.wp.com/www.nakedpixel.ro/wp-content/uploads/2015/05/experienta-zeiss-otus-1-485-027.jpg

More here:
http://www.nakedpixel.ro/experienta-zeiss-otus-1-485/

The site is in Romenian, so I used Google Translate; you can do the same if you're interested.

This is amazing - I've never, ever seen anything like it...

 

[TheDingo]

It's the freakin' lens!

Since video imaging is relatively low resolution compared to still photography, lets take a look at how this $4,500 Zeiss lens compares to a $500 Nikon G lens on a 12 Mpx Nikon D3 camera...

DXO Comparison of the 85mm Zeiss Otus Lens vs 85mm Nikon G Lens : Both lenses tested on a Nikon D3 Body

Hmmm... what exactly is the extra $4,000 buying when used for video work ?

 

[stoppingby]

what exactly is the extra $4,000 buying when used for video work ?

Did you see the links I just posted a few minutes ago?

This could be worth way more $4,000! Again, these are frames from the video, not still photos!

(Still trying to pick my jaw up off the floor...)

 

[TheDingo]

May I ask which you would recommend? (Preferably a cheaper one than Arri Alexa... )

We all know that this comes down to budget...

In the under $10K category many people would recommend the Sony FS7 for 4K 10-bit 4:2:2 and 14 F-stops of dynamic range.

Down from this the Canon C100 Mk2 or Mk1 gives you 1080 HD from a 4K sensor ( 1500+ lines resolved ) with 12 F-stops of dynamic range. ( 8-bit 4:2:2 with an external recorder )

The Sony A7S Mk1 gives you 4K 8-bit 4:2:2 with an external recorder and 13+ F-stops of dynamic range. ( A7S Mk2 gives you 4K internal but it's 4:2:0 )

The lowly Panasonic GH4 gives you 4K 10-bit 4:2:2 with an external recorder and 12 F-stops of dynamic range when shooting V-log L. ( but you have to live with the m4/3 sensor size and it's DOF )

Another reason is that she's standing completely still for a moment. As soon as she moves again, her skin turns into the usual 'video-wax' or 'video-rubber'.

You also have to factor in YouTube compression that is definitely destroying a lot detail in what you are seeing.

In terms of image detail, here's a 4K frame grab from a window lit interview I shot last year with my GH4. Be sure to download the JPEG and view it in 1:1 pixel mode, and you will see it has a fair bit of image resolution, especially considering how flat the lighting was. This was shot with an old Nikon 50mm f/1.4 AI-S lens on a Metabones SpeedBooster using an effective F-stop of f/2.0. I have newer Panasonic lenses, but I often find them too sharp for the aesthetic I am after, so most of the time I'm shooting with old Nikon AI-S glass.

GH4 4K frame grab

 

[TheDingo]

Did you see the links I just posted a few minutes ago?

...This looks a lot like my GH4 when using Panasonic prime lenses. The Lumix 42.5mm f/1.2 lens would probably be a good match under the same conditions. ( I own the 42.5mm f/1.7 which I bought to shoot head-shot photos, and it's deadly sharp even at full aperture. )

 

[stoppingby]

...This looks a lot like my GH4 when using Panasonic prime lenses. The Lumix 42.5mm f/1.2 lens would probably be a good match under the same conditions. ( I own the 42.5mm f/1.7 which I bought to shoot head-shot photos, and it's deadly sharp even at full aperture. )

Thank you very much for the frame grab, it's absolutely impressive that the smaller sensor can do this! The shirt is amazing. Did you use an external recorder?

Also thanks for info about the other cameras - I'll definitely look into the FS7 (I' already looked at the C100, but wasn't really blown away).

BUT I still have to say that I've seen nothing, ever, that competes with the Otus/A7s frames I just linked to. Perhaps it's just me, but I'm baffled...

Also, I wasn't aware that the first A7s is a bit better than the second. Seems it would be better to get an A7s+recorder than an A7sii, then.

 

[IronFilm]

...This looks a lot like my GH4 when using Panasonic prime lenses. The Lumix 42.5mm f/1.2 lens would probably be a good match under the same conditions. ( I own the 42.5mm f/1.7 which I bought to shoot head-shot photos, and it's deadly sharp even at full aperture. )

I'd go a step further and suggest somebody shoots this with the Sony RX10 mk2, just to blow stoppingby's mind and prove to him it isn't all about the camera/lens.