Luminous Landscape Forum
Equipment & Techniques => Motion & Video => Topic started by: billy on April 25, 2014, 05:18:10 pm
-
I would think their would be some discussion by now, any thoughts? I think I will be buying this just for the tonal range of shadow and highlight. Rumors of 14-15 stops of dynamic range sound tantalizing. I do not need the low light ability so much but it would be a nice bonus. I do not need 4k either. Excellent 1080p without having a truck full of HMI and Kino to fill the shadows ( mostly outdoor shooting for me ). Anyone else interested? And it may be a great stills camera as well, if you don't need blazing speed autofocus. On that note, perhaps the autofocus during video will work well enough to use like the GH3?
-
See http://www.luminous-landscape.com/forum/index.php?topic=88774.0
-
A filmmaker's perspective suggests that the A7s may be a better choice than the GH4:
http://wolfcrow.com/blog/a-fun-comparison-between-the-sony-a7s-the-panasonic-gh4-and-the-canon-1dc-4k-dslr-cameras/
Goff
-
A filmmaker's perspective suggests that the A7s may be a better choice than the GH4:
http://wolfcrow.com/blog/a-fun-comparison-between-the-sony-a7s-the-panasonic-gh4-and-the-canon-1dc-4k-dslr-cameras/
Goff
There seems to be a strong "pro GH4" culture in this forum. Personally I feel that the A7S has more to offer me, I have one on preorder.
-
See the thread I started "At the end of the rainbow".
There you will discover that the LL videos are now being shot at 4K on two GH4s.
I, too, am attracted by the Sony A7s because its dynamic range and high ISO performance meet the needs of one of my current projects. I conclude that, as ever, it is a matter if "horses for courses". I am delaying my 4K purchase until next year, by which time I expect several new horses to have left the stables.
Goff
-
Im keen on this camera simply if it makes OK video (aka better than a 5d2/3)
Simply the FF sensor means no re-lensing for me and a decent FOV.
The GH4 needs a 9mm for a wide FOV, which means buying some odd glass (that might be a pain to ND) and probably a speedbooster.
Of course Im still to be convinced that either the Gh4 or the A7s actually present better images than my FS100!
S
-
There seems to be a strong "pro GH4" culture in this forum. Personally I feel that the A7S has more to offer me, I have one on preorder.
I have sensed that as well. Everything about the GH4 seems great EXCEPT the 'look' of the image it delivers. Looks like video to me. Blown out highlights because of the low DR, etc. I guess it just depends on how u shoot.
-
There seems to be a strong "pro GH4" culture in this forum. Personally I feel that the A7S has more to offer me, I have one on preorder.
With our studios it's not a gh4 bias, but I have produced really interesting work with the gh3.
As I mentioned I have four 43 bodies and about every m43 lens so it makes sense to go with the gh4 but I held back.
I want to test the A7s, even though it will double my costs to switch out systems.
The upside of the gh4 is
1. the auto and touch screen focus that covers the full frame.
2. The range of decent glass, though the 2.8 zooms are slow for this format. For a cinema look you really need to be at 1.2 to 1.4 primes on most of the normal range lenses.
3. most peripherals carry over from the gh3.
4. 4k internal recording for a small form factor.
5. Very well thought out ergonomics on the camera
The downside of the gh4.
1. ISO, for heavy grading 800 is probably the high end, 1000 is stretching it for video with heavy noise reduction.
2. the crop factor. 2x is difficult, 2.3 x on the gh4 is brutal. As you mentioned a 9mm is 23 in ff terms and has huge glass for this camera. Also longer than 200mm equivalent is the top semi fast lens that will autofocus. Pulling this type of selective focus is not the easiest thing for a gh4 sized crop. The top is a fF 35mm camera, the bottom a red one with a 35mm at F2.
(http://www.russellrutherford.com/moscow_1ds3.jpg)
(http://www.russellrutherford.com/red_aiden_still.jpg)
3. Only two versions of 4k compression.. Uncompressed to a external device, or highly compressed in camera. Both offer their own challenges.
You have to work an uncompressed project to really understand the size.
4. I looks like a little 5d3. Not that that is the most important, but it's not a looker.
5. to get xlr sound in, on two channels even in scratch form requires the yagh device that's the cost of the camera, or a third party convertor.
6. Once again 2.3x is a heavy crop and I'd be very surprised if Panasonic doesn't offer some kind of bridge camera between the gh4 and the $60,000 varicam with a super 35mm or aps C format.
7. if you pull back to allow for edl stabilization your crop is even more severe.
The A7s
1. It's not out so who knows.
2. Lenses are roughly 1.5 to twice the price of the gh4 and zooms will be front heavy for devices like hand held stabilizers and drones.
3. No touch screen focus., which until you've tried it, you won't know what your missing.
4. It seems a little rushed to market and accessories from Sony are to come, always to come.
5. The $2,000 Shogun to get to 420 4k is going to put the price double the gh4. Actually across the board fully kitted out your double the gh4 in price.
6. Higher iso is great for certain situations. Makes night shooting with small leds a breeze.
7. I think this is also a bridge camera.
For some reason, even at much higher costs, I didn't lose any sleep over buying our REDs. I knew they were professional and would last a long time, even with the X sensor because really who is going to beat my door down for 6k footage?
Buying these small electronic cameras just sends me crazy because something is always held back, waiting for the next 18 month change.
I feel like I'm sort of being played and if I learn one more menu system of a camera I'm going to have to build a flip chart.
I personally feel apsc or super 35mm (whatever that is) is probably the perfect motion format, but given that, we're still kind of working off old film format thought.
The gh4 could be thought of as a digital super 16 but the file doesn't look like super 16 film. The A7s is probably too large but motion picture film cameras were most constructed due to costs of film. If film was never an issue I really wonder if 35mm film cameras would not have run a horizintal ff still 35mm size, verses running the film vertical.
Everybody talks about 24 fps like it's a holy grail, but I've shot and edited 24 and 30 fps and it doesn't seem to be much difference, other than smoothness of titles and horizontal scrolling.
What gives a cinema look is quality of production, lenses, format and grading, much more than fps.
IMO
BC
P.S. If you have a good story, and good production values and are shooting for yourself in a closed loop and/or you are your own client, then you can use almost any camera.
lately or at least for the last two years, I've heard time and again for large projects, blowback if you say your shooting with a dslr, regardless of the dslr.
It's not that they're bad, that covers a lot of territory, but well paying client's expect professional production, including cameras. They might or might not know the difference between a REd or Alexa, or an F55 but they assume professional cameras bring with it professional results and in some way they are right.
The things is we shoot so different today and it's not unusual for us to use the gh3's, two to three REDs, even a go pro from time to time and though I own, renting or owning makes not difference to a client, as long as they feel they get the level of production they desire.
Actually the rule is to offer more than they anticipate.
But at the end of the day, it's all about the final story and how it's presented.
-
I have sensed that as well. Everything about the GH4 seems great EXCEPT the 'look' of the image it delivers. Looks like video to me. Blown out highlights because of the low DR, etc. I guess it just depends on how u shoot.
The GH4 can do a fine job on image quality right out of the box. What your are seeing are pathetic attempts to achieve a "film look" by turning down the GH4 "parameters" to ridiculous minimums that produce a data-deficient .mp4, and then essentially trying to "grade" the poor data-starved file to resemble some bizarre concept of what "film" looks like.
Before digital, the only way to get that look was to make a badly timed print from an internegative struck from an old release print stored on the top of somebody's water heater for 20 years. I have to assume a lot of film newbies have never seen a good 35mm film print properly projected. Which looks pretty much like what you get with the GH4 with the parameters set to factory defaults.
And screw 24FPS. I spent a lot of my career making effects cameras simulate 300 degree shutters, just to make 24FPS motion suck less than it really does.
The fact that there is no serious committee promoting 60FPS as the digital standard speaks poorly for the industry. It looks so cool on the screen, and most existing digital projectors at the multi-plexes can handle it.
In drama, whatever emotion that comes across at 24FPS, comes across with twice the urgency at higher frames rates, if one is only willing to discard ridiculous video-phobic prejudices. 60FPS removes the quaint patina of it's-not-quite-real that comes from 24FPS, and with directors up to task can hit you over the head with not merely visceral experiences never before possible on the dramatic screen, but with subtle dramatic ones filtered not through some archaic technical patina, but directly from the sharply seen human reality of the actors. I have seen dramatic demonstrations at high frame rates, and to be honest it's can be discomforting in ways "normal" cinema is not. An angry, highly realistic looking character projecting straight at the viewer in first person mode is damned frightening. Maybe that's it: high frame rates work better in first person mode.
But no, we will continue to wallow at 24FPS because that's what we grew up with at the Bijou. Cripes. Let's burn down the film schools.
Sorry for the hot-buttons.
-
I think 24fps is a legacy notion and the "cinematic" look comes from more than a frame rate. The ability to gently throw focus, expert lighting that has continuity, sound, excellent grading do a lot more for the look of a film than a slower frame rate.
I shoot at 24fps if a client requires the master footage in that format, but when we work closed loop through our studios I go to 30 fps because moving horizontal titles and just the overall look of the project seems nicer to me.
What I don't like is pulling focus from nose to horizon. To me that has a video look, not the fps.
I think we're in the infancy of motion production and frame formats are becoming less important than the capibility of a camera.
Early this morning I read about an indie short where they shot with the black magic cinema camera. It produced an excellent file, but the focus screen issues, overheating and dropping the ssd, to me we're crazy.
I'd lose my mind over those issues, though like all artists the writher/director/editor/colorists (it was an indie production), loved the look of the footage so much he still raved about the camera and that is one thing I can understand.
I still use our RED 1's over any camera I own, including the Scarlet. I might upgrade the Scarlet to an Epic Dragon, but I'll bet if I do, I still use the R1's for 90% of our shooting because I love the look of that camera.
I guess all of this comes down to personal preference, but we all know if the sag rules allowed for TV production with film cameras without extra charge (vs aftra that doesn't charge higher rates) most dp's would still be fighting to shoot film, (most dp's still do.)
So in regards to the A7 and it's comparison of the gh4, they both have a place, both come down to personal preference, but if one has a huge advantage over the other in look and usability, the fps and format are the last two things anyone will care about.
At this stage I think the A7 is almost a must buy or at least try, given it's high iso for night shooting.
IMO
BC
-
bcooter and bill t. bring up good points. Personal preference and how certain tools fit into the workflow are key.
You can still make a pretty decent video production with a 5D Mark II. Even better with MIII, but these cameras do not compare those that shoot raw video. I am very excited about the A7s, it will give me allot more options, even with all it's short comings, detailed here above.
-
You can still make a pretty decent video production with a 5D Mark II. Even better with MIII, but these cameras do not compare those that shoot raw video. I am very excited about the A7s, it will give me allot more options, even with all it's short comings, detailed here above.
Your right. A show like Wilfred is shot entirely with D800s. Don't know why because when you get into this form factor I'm not quite sure where the savings, or the workflow matter, except for probably higher iso.
(http://cinema.nikonusa.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/06/cinoflex-nikon-d800-3.jpg)
Right now motion capture is in the wild west, but unlike stills there are more formats and unlike stills you have to deal with frequencies, fps, a lot of stuff you just don't think about with a still image.
The A7s should have the features of the gh4 and if it did, well, I think it would have really rocked the motion world, but right now we're still in the upgrade cycle for smaller cameras.
Larger cameras like the Arri and RED tend to last longer because they've pretty much thought of everything for higher end production.
Everyone, including me compares the A7s to the gh4 or a lot of other small cameras, but honestly they do different things in a different way and both would be worth having if your work, crew, budget is varied.
IMO
BC
-
On a side note, I really like your still from the ballet studio, a beautiful ballerina and student -- priceless expression!
Cheers,
Chris
-
A few screenshots from Canon 5DMIII with Canon 24-70mm vs. Sony A7S with Tamron 24-70mm, both exposed for highlights.
To make this a bit more fair, I did not shoot Slog2 with the A7s, just a flat general profile (picture profile 6). My Canon is set to a recommend flatter profile, both received a very conservative grading in FCPX. I am sure the difference will not be as significant in a ideally exposed (letting the highlights blow out) and lid scene, I wanted to present both cameras with a very challenging scene.
I just got it yesterday, not sure if I will make any further comparisons. The main thing for me was to get a feel for Sony's profiles and how it compares to Canons abilities.
Being very familiar with Canon and having used it with good results in all of my previous video work, I mainly made this comparison for my self. It was a pure afterthought to present and share this here on the forum, I do relies how limiting these are, but decided to share them anyway, not allot of A7S footage out there.
-
What are the downsides for shooting at maximum frame rate on the Nikon D800 and editing in FCP? Are the file sizes larger and more problematic to edit pieces say 15-20 minutes long? Does camera movement become more noticeable? Please forgive the ignorance. I've only started doing this recently.
John
I think 24fps is a legacy notion and the "cinematic" look comes from more than a frame rate. The ability to gently throw focus, expert lighting that has continuity, sound, excellent grading do a lot more for the look of a film than a slower frame rate.
I shoot at 24fps if a client requires the master footage in that format, but when we work closed loop through our studios I go to 30 fps because moving horizontal titles and just the overall look of the project seems nicer to me.
What I don't like is pulling focus from nose to horizon. To me that has a video look, not the fps.
I think we're in the infancy of motion production and frame formats are becoming less important than the capibility of a camera.
Early this morning I read about an indie short where they shot with the black magic cinema camera. It produced an excellent file, but the focus screen issues, overheating and dropping the ssd, to me we're crazy.
I'd lose my mind over those issues, though like all artists the writher/director/editor/colorists (it was an indie production), loved the look of the footage so much he still raved about the camera and that is one thing I can understand.
I still use our RED 1's over any camera I own, including the Scarlet. I might upgrade the Scarlet to an Epic Dragon, but I'll bet if I do, I still use the R1's for 90% of our shooting because I love the look of that camera.
I guess all of this comes down to personal preference, but we all know if the sag rules allowed for TV production with film cameras without extra charge (vs aftra that doesn't charge higher rates) most dp's would still be fighting to shoot film, (most dp's still do.)
So in regards to the A7 and it's comparison of the gh4, they both have a place, both come down to personal preference, but if one has a huge advantage over the other in look and usability, the fps and format are the last two things anyone will care about.
At this stage I think the A7 is almost a must buy or at least try, given it's high iso for night shooting.
IMO
BC
-
What are the downsides for shooting at maximum frame rate on the Nikon D800 and editing in FCP? Are the file sizes larger and more problematic to edit pieces say 15-20 minutes long? Does camera movement become more noticeable? Please forgive the ignorance. I've only started doing this recently.
John
This is really a general cinematography thread - most stuff is delivered at 24/25/30 FPS shooting at that FPS looks right, generally one shoots at higher frame rates to then slow the footage in post to make slow motion. eg 50p on a 25p timeline is 50% slomo
While one may think (and some do) that a film with a high framrate would look more realistic generally that is not considered to be the case - film runs at 24FPS and looks 'filmic' stuff at higher framerates eg 50 tends to look very 'video'
One of the big films was recently made at 48FPS (hobbit?) - some thought it looked good others felt strongly that it looked like crap.
Personally in the UK I use 25fps as it is 50% of 50hz and wont flicker under electric lights..
-
If you film at a high frame rate an merge the images to get a slow you can imaging it looks odd.
Another reason not to film at high frame rates (with some cameras) is that the compression per frame can be higher rendering the images softer.
S
-
Personally in the UK I use 25fps as it is 50% of 50hz and wont flicker under electric lights..
S
Back to the A7s, for me it's the camera I want to buy, but I'm always stopped for some reason. I looked at one the other day for an upcoming project, actually am trying to get one large camera/lens case for stills and video and the if the A7s worked for me, I'd go that direction by adding an a7R.
Then the specs. If you buy an A7s in the states or Japan it's ntsc only, 24p which means European practical lights will flicker, if you buy in Europe (for a higher price) you can select pal or ntsc.
Then I tried the autofocus on the A7s and it was less than my gh3's so I went with a Canon 70d.
The 70d is a world camera with pal and ntsc frame rates, has the best autofocus I've seen, which is slightly better than my gh3's an aps c sensor which I think is the perfect filming format and obviously works with all my Canon still lenses including one of my RED's that I've set with a Canon mount.
So for a grand I bought an 70d instead of $2,500 for an A7s.
Now by the time I add a sound recorder, a cage and a few other bits, the 70 d doubled in price but it's still under the A7s in price, with the only real liability is the 70d won't ever go 4k.
Someday I think the A7 line will be up to true pro level, but today it's still hobbled and I'm not sure what the reason is.
IMO
BC
-
Hi bcooter,
Yeh, the A7S isn't for me. No on-board 4K and no autofocus worth a damn (I don't know what native lenses might be like but even metabones say the AF performance not usable with adapted EF glass). I might get one for available light stills when the price comes down a bit.
I'm looking at the 70D or GH4, having just ordered a gimbal rig. I'm going to fly my RED when I have enough people around that someone can remote focus, but could really do with something for solo shoots.
Have you tried GH3 and 70D on a steadicam or gimbal rigs? How flexible is the AF? Do they have usable face/eye detection or reasonable ability to slap a good sized autofocus box off-centre? Did you get good stuff and enjoy shooting that way? Or were they a huge pain in the ass to get anything out of?
I saw a test of the Canon C100 AF and it looked promising, but having the AF box confined to the centre would be too limiting. The same size box at the one third and two third points would probably do me just fine... especially if face/eye detect is available as an alternative.
I've been having lots of fun with my iPhone 5 on a cheap gimbal mount: there are advantages to lots of depth of field from a tiny sensor! With the FILMIC PRO app I can record 50 Mbps 25p on it and it intercuts surprisingly well with the RED so long as everything is dynamic.
But I could really do with something in between the two- more dynamic range than the iPhone, better autofocus than the RED....
Anyone else got any experience with this use case? (Solo operator, steadicam/gimbal, autofocus?)
Cheers, Hywel.
-
Hywel, I agree.
My a7s came into the store yesterday, but I cancelled the order.
instead I bought a 70d and on a whim the blackmagic pocket camera.
The A7s like all A7 cameras is so close to being "right", but . . .
On board 4k, a better codec, higher bitrate and decent autofocus or touch screen focus and a module to good sound preamps would make it more useable.
(Nobody should underestimate autofocus on video if it's implemented well and reliable and I'll take a higher bitrate over resolution any day.).......
The 70D and GH3 have the best autofocus I've used and like all things what scene works well with one is challenging with the other, but right now I'd say the 70d is very good for autofocus if you plan the settings well.
The only downside (short of it only being 2k) is it's intentionally hobbled by silly things like if you go hdmi out, the camera screen blanks out, which is needed to adjust focus and there is no headphone jack, which isn't a deal breaker in the fact we use a tascam attached to a small
wooden camera cage.
In regards to using a stabilizer, we've tested a few, right now I'm waiting for a few new releases as I would like a gimbal that can take a scarlet/epic as well as a dslr.
The Ronin and Defy are probably the best buy, though usually out of stock. A ronin is about 3 grand, a small defy about $2600, though was told the next defy will hold up to 10 lbs and come in at $2,900 so I'm waiting as I believe all
the stabilizers will either drop in price or come in with new models.
The best being the movi, but one of the most difficult to learn and set up.
If it was in stock the new Ronin at $2600 to $2900 will hold up to 16 lbs, but it's not available and well I'll wait.
Autofocus on the stabilizers is just like hand held in that some work well, some don't, but tracking a walking person with a stabilizer for me is easiest with the 70d, for a static camera shot and face detecting, tracing a moving person with the gh3 is very good.
Once again, it's all in the scene and the settings.
FWIW I didn't buy the gh4 because of the 4k crop factor. 2x is tough to throw focus for a cinematic look, 2.3x is brutal . .. that's one of the reasons I added a 70d as I believe aps c is the perfect movie format because there is less jello and skewing than full frame like the A7s and
since I have one our our REDs set up with a Canon mount, the 70 slips right into production well.
Also an aps c crop allows for more selective focus.
The pocket camera, I bought for two reasons. It's small and kind of stealthy for projects where permitting is tough for large cameras and crew, the file is film like and closely matches our REDS and the REDs are still the main cameras for our productions.
The bmpc has it's issues, is not a go to camera for everything, burns through 5 batteries a day, but the proress file is excellent.
In regards to stabilizers, I'd wait and rent because I think everyone believes there is going to be a big drop in prices and newer models are going to have easier setup.
IMO
BC
Hi bcooter,
Yeh, the A7S isn't for me. No on-board 4K and no autofocus worth a damn (I don't know what native lenses might be like but even metabones say the AF performance not usable with adapted EF glass). I might get one for available light stills when the price comes down a bit.
I'm looking at the 70D or GH4, having just ordered a gimbal rig. I'm going to fly my RED when I have enough people around that someone can remote focus, but could really do with something for solo shoots.
Have you tried GH3 and 70D on a steadicam or gimbal rigs? How flexible is the AF? Do they have usable face/eye detection or reasonable ability to slap a good sized autofocus box off-centre? Did you get good stuff and enjoy shooting that way? Or were they a huge pain in the ass to get anything out of?
I saw a test of the Canon C100 AF and it looked promising, but having the AF box confined to the centre would be too limiting. The same size box at the one third and two third points would probably do me just fine... especially if face/eye detect is available as an alternative.
I've been having lots of fun with my iPhone 5 on a cheap gimbal mount: there are advantages to lots of depth of field from a tiny sensor! With the FILMIC PRO app I can record 50 Mbps 25p on it and it intercuts surprisingly well with the RED so long as everything is dynamic.
But I could really do with something in between the two- more dynamic range than the iPhone, better autofocus than the RED....
Anyone else got any experience with this use case? (Solo operator, steadicam/gimbal, autofocus?)
Cheers, Hywel.
-
Hi BC,
Many thanks, that's very useful!
Just played with a friends' shiny new 70D and am now very tempted.
The autofocus is very good. Maybe Canon will add it to a 4K 7D Mark II this September. (Yeh, right).
I ordered a Ronin knowing it won't be in stock for a while because it can take my Scarlet. The B-cam can live on it for regular shoots where the RED is on sticks, or I can rig the RED on it for a day when I know everything is going to be in motion.
I know I should probably rent a gimbal rig first but having recently moved to mid-Wales that would be such a rigmarole that for £2100 I'll just buy it, try it, run around the woods with it and if it isn't fit for purpose I'll sell it.
I'm kicking myself for missing the ultra-cheap BM Pocket Camera deal. Like having an interchangeable lens GoPro shooting ProRes (at GoPro prices). Never mind!
I don't mind the GH4's crop factor particularly, because it is definitely going to be a B-cam and greater depth of field from a smaller sensor is actually an advantage. In my style of shooting the jump in depth of field isn't so noticeable when the shots are all moving. Having more depth of field will help if the autofocus decides to focus on a bra strap instead of the near eyeball, too, which is a pain in the ass on the RED run and gun at f/2.8 with a middling cheap lens even with focus peaking and a human pulling focus.
I was surprised how well the RED intercut with iPhone on a gimbal or GoPro: when the shots are moving purposefully the continuity of motion across edits hides a lot of sins.
Cheers, Hywel.
-
Here's an article on doing astrophotography with the A7s (http://petapixel.com/2014/07/30/sony-a7s-astrophotography-review/), which has a very interesting nugget relating to video in that base ISO for video is 3200.
-
Everybody talks about 24 fps like it's a holy grail, but I've shot and edited 24 and 30 fps and it doesn't seem to be much difference, other than smoothness of titles and horizontal scrolling.
What gives a cinema look is quality of production, lenses, format and grading, much more than fps.
Absolutely.
The 24fps supposed superiority is based on decades of comparing 24fps footage shot on film with 30fps footage shot on inferior video. The frame rate was until recently tied to the capture medium and people for some foolish reason then confused frame rate with look, not the capture medium. The 'video look' was due to the footage being shot on video not the wretched frame rate. IMO.
-
While 30p looks OK to me higher framerates like 50p look sicky smooth - certainly a video look.
When I first started video I could not see the smudging effect of 50p or 50i - now I certianly can - yuk!
30p is probably about the best (IMO) - offering some 'filmic' stutter but not the jerking one can get at 24.
Personally I use 25 as it matches UK electricity.
S
-
While 30p looks OK to me higher framerates like 50p look sicky smooth - certainly a video look.
When I first started video I could not see the smudging effect of 50p or 50i - now I certianly can - yuk!
30p is probably about the best (IMO) - offering some 'filmic' stutter but not the jerking one can get at 24.
Personally I use 25 as it matches UK electricity.
So have you watched film shot at 50fps and experienced the same issue or are you watching video and ascribing video's look to the fps rate? Higher frame rates have been tried with film but the mechanical stress on film material and the vastly increased cost is the reason it wasn't used. Despite the fact that the immersive quality was claimed to be far superior by some like Douglas Trumball.
-
So have you watched film shot at 50fps and experienced the same issue or are you watching video and ascribing video's look to the fps rate? Higher frame rates have been tried with film but the mechanical stress on film material and the vastly increased cost is the reason it wasn't used. Despite the fact that the immersive quality was claimed to be far superior by some like Douglas Trumball.
My FS100 shoots at 50p, my EX1 at 50i - so you can see the look on the monitors.. it literally makes one feel ill when operating.
S
-
So you've not seen film at 50fps then.
-
A thought about frame rates :
24 fps is very practical as it is easy to convert to other standards.
24fps can be sped up slightly to play back at 25fps or then doubled to 50fps for 50hz broadcast countries.
24fps converts well to 30fps with 3:2 pull down, so that it can be shown in cinemas and 60hz broadcast also.
So, today, if you want to distribute to a global audience, 24fps is the best frame rate for filming. 30fps does not convert well to 24 or 50fps.
-
Maybe Canon will add it to a 4K 7D Mark II this September. (Yeh, right).
(http://www.russellrutherfordgroup.com/70d.JPG)
Hywel,
I think it would be great if the 7d was 4k and had the autofocus of the 70d, but in my view better if the 70d just had a few more features like hdmi out without killing
the camera monitor and a headphone jack and 4k.
Anyway,
This is the base of my "instead of A7s" rig.
It's not huge RED, it's not stealthy 43, but it's fast, autofocus is pretty amazing and works in low light.
I guess it's a lifestyle advertising camera and that's what we use it for.
The total cost of camera, cage, audio recorder is less than the A7s, the 2k files of the 70d and the A7s are virtually the same except at high, high iso.
I can also use my Canon lens set for both stills and motion so it's a seamless transition.
Actually the only thing it's missing is 4k, but few people are producing 4k content at output, so today it's not a deal breaker and I wonder how many people buy
the a7s will actually buy a recorder and shoot 4k.
The cage is from Wooden camera and it's good, almost a fraction too small, but with the handle you can walk and track without a lot of stuttery movement.
Not 3 axis stabilizer smooth, but not mobile phone shaky either, so for that "real" look it works and just a little stabilization in post will smooth it out more if need be.
I personally think the dslr motion camera is where the industry is going, at least it fits perfectly into the creative briefs and budgets we work under.
I also think just like stills dslrs are so close to outputting what larger cameras produce in still and motion.
Obviously the output from my REDs is better than this 70d and just like medium format vs. 35mm in stills, the smaller camera makes for a faster more fluid project,
a larger camera produces better imagery but only at the very very highest level.
Advertising seems to be completely in two separate camps.
Either high end capture and production values with a great deal of post production, or a more "real" look with
less on set production and less post. Both are viable, both can be profitable, but each genre requires a different outlook and different equipment.
I see much more of the real look than the high end effected look, but that's probably a reflection of budget.
IMO
BC
-
As crazy as it sounds, the good old GH2 with an intra hack (like the Quantum that was the one I used) is a "killer" in low-light
even compared with the GH3 wich is rather disappointing in that aspect.
Search on Vimeo or YouTube lowlights examples with those hacks. As a B cam on a Budget (GH2 cost nothing now and IMO are still very usable)
with the correct hack you might have surprising results with Little grading.
A link to see those I.frame hacks in question: http://osgfilms.com/gh2-driftwood-patches/
I know that talking about an Antique hacked GH2 in 2014 is sort of looking back instead of biting into the endless novelties sagas,
but hey...you know what I think about those new magic cameras every 6 months.
Make calculations of constant upgrades and we're not far from the cost of an Alexa for 10 years of use with zero hassles...
Buy chinese because it's cheap and more costly in the end but it seems not because it's fragmentated
over a period of time.
-
I know that talking about an Antique hacked GH2 in 2014 is sort of looking back instead of biting into the endless novelties sagas,
but hey...you know what I think about those new magic cameras every 6 months.
To some extent - there is nothing wrong with old tech, specifically when compared to new higher res. cameras, for delivering 1080.
More pixels tends to add to downscaling issues, maybe reduce lowlight performance, and increase jello.
It is a shame that we have not seen a really great little cam aimed at producing 2Kraw
Well in fact we have, Dbolex, BMC2.5k BMC pocket and Ikonopoop to name a few - but they have not 'worked' for me mainly due to the issues of lensing smaller sensors
The high end sony '1080' F35 (was $200k, now $10k) has a fanbase and to some extent I remain a fan of my Sony FS100 and F3 - I bought the Sony F3 after a serious flirtation with the Sony F5 - which to my eyes did not produce very good 1080 (one could see downscaling artifacts) - the F5 is a great 4k camera though but I could not sustain a 4k raw workflow..
Sony have just launched a 1' chip handy cam (X70??) which looks really nice (50mbs 10bit onboard, 60p(?) , SDI out, XLR, ND) but once again is hampered IMO by cramming 4k pixels into the sensor..
S
-
Morgan and Fred,
I think your both right. Use what works for you and your client base.
I find it interesting that the real behind the scenes working market doesn't jump at new because it's new.
When High Def came out and I'd hire secondary video crew, it was almost impossible to find a video production company that had a high def camera.
Now we're in this strange no man's land of capture in 4k, delivery in 2k.
It's like a catch phrase where clients say can you shoot 4k but nobody asks for a 4k finish.
I guess the makers will move us up again (some say trick us) into new monitors, computers, cameras and terabytes of storage to shoot and deliver 4k that is streamed on youtube at 50 bits a second.
Personally I like shooting 4k on the REDs because I like the look, never think that much about the detail and with the RED Rocket cards the workflow is fast, but their is a cost of the cards and the storage.
Last week did some "film" tests of the 70d next to the blackmagic pocket camera. The bmcpc shoots a nice file, though with 43 lenses pulls focus from lens to the end of the block, a metabones will allow you more freedom and give you an almost super 35mm framing, but those little cameras come with a cost of add ons that quadruples the price.
The 70d, though you have to watch alaising is probably within 10% of dynamic range of the blackmagic, but grading of the 70d file is 200% easier.
It's kind of funny that with all the higher end cameras I own, for the next few weeks I'll probably shoot 90% with a 70d, due to size, time and well . . . time.
On another note, I wonder why there isn't a grading suite for video that resembles lightroom, maybe with tracking and keying. Resolve does a lot but isn't the easiest program to learn kind of goofy and glitchy on output, where the learning curve of lightroom is about 10% compared to resolve.
I guess someday we'll see it.
IMO
BC
-
I think, or at least that's what I observe here in Europe, that the game is slightly different nowdays.
If you take the high fashion place advert in France and italy, it's all about who shoots (as it always was in still) and of course
Mario can make "making-off" with the crew using very Little production, or at least a production that suits mainly the still campaign,
very Little post prod and with a bit of taste it looks cool.
But when those brands are shooting real campaigns they have the Budget
for cine production and they do. So as in still, who shoot the video? the very same that were shooting them before all the digital democratization area.
In other words, what was high-end yesterday is in the same hands today.
So there they all work colaborative, heavy prod/post and fragmentated.
Then, and very much like in real life, the middle class is sinking into poverty as the richer gets richer...it means that the dudes that were into
a very decent market level but not at the top, are obliged to do the Jobs cheaper, faster, and those same are now compeating with the low-end spheres.
And this is in this wild west "no-ma's-land" that the mess is indeed.
Nothing can get fully satisfactory under a Budget X and a crew Y.
The tech is there but it's a problema of priorities. We are spoiled to some extend by the marketing deps.
Arri is not targeting people like us, but Sony either. And when it comes to post-prod very much the same.
Ironically, doing good job into the middle-low end is as difficult if not more than doing good job at the top.
But when investors are risking a lot of money into a Project it still has to be done within the "old" way by a bunch of dudes.
See fashion industry. Who shoots the big campaigns? you can count the guys in your hand's fingers. Then, the rest of the world
within the wild west.
-
Resolve
BC
The more I use Resolve the more photoshop/C1 seems clunky - where are my huge scopes? I love resolve, but still there are IMO a couple of clunks but not many!
S
-
Resolve is certainly great,
But still a remanent of the fragmentated workflow.
The guys at the Foundry could do a Nuke suitable
For editing and grading, but their customers
Are specialists so they don't.
Adobe could do a lightroom with high-end specs
For serious post but they won't as it would target
The youtubers.
So there is an empty space in the middle and it
Happens very much the same with cams.
It's like 2 worlds that never end to merge well.
On the cheap, it always misses something and
The ads-on are in the end expensive. And on the
Very pro, unlike in still, it's heavy artillery for
Specialists.
In post, it's still quite amazing that the real all-in-one
Is Smoke. But it aint easy. This is not suitable
For the masses. Autodesk is quite big here so we
Have official training seminars and yes, in the
Right hands it does amazing things, but to master
It properly it requires a lot of training.
So in the end, ironicaly, the smoke operators
Are working in the very high-end when it was thought
To be suitable for the middle size houses.
But yes, Resolve is quite amazing.
-
(http://www.russellrutherfordgroup.com/70d.JPG)
This is the base of my "instead of A7s" rig.
It's not huge RED, it's not stealthy 43, but it's fast, autofocus is pretty amazing and works in low light.
BC - time for a smaller A7s rig ... ?
(https://scontent-a-mxp.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-xpa1/t31.0-8/p720x720/10504964_631124807007976_4482011590504931806_o.jpg)
-
I have a bit of an amateur/newbie question.
I've been reading that it isn't advisable to shoot in Log (i.e. sLog2) with 8 bit 4-2-0 color space. I'm assuming the result being the image falls apart, due to lack of color information, once things are pushed around a good bit...or even slightly pushed in some cases. I haven't applied any heavy grades to the A7s, but sLog2 seems fairly robust to me, although getting good exposure is a bit of a challenge with 3200 ISO in daylight. I've had some banding issues with the heavy ND necessary to shoot in sunlight.
So do any of the member's here agree that shooting in sLog2 is not the best idea? I've experimented with some of the Cine Gammas, but I'm no expert, and I've found sLog2 to grade a bit better. But I'm also curious if anyone has found a good recipe for picture profiles with the A7s? Philip Bloom's review was decent, and he added that the Cine Gammas seemed to work better for him, particularly with respect to noise. Just wondering what everyone's thoughts were.
Thanks all!
JB
-
JB
I guess you understand the theory of banding in an 8bit codec as you only record 256 levels there are no 'spare' tones to find when you push the file around unlike a 1064 level 10bit file or 4096 12 bit file.
Of course it is all mudged up with compression and the fact that not every image you shoot is full of long slow tonal changes.
Back to Sony.
Well I own an F3. My opinion even with a 10bit recorder is that Slog is too flat (slog was developed for the 12bit F35 camera)
Anyway coming from stills I look to expose to the right or in video world at least fill the sensor with info by using slow ISO where possible.
From some experiments I did (https://vimeo.com/86697012) I saw that the standard profiles 'chainsaw' the highlights, cinegammas allow natural roll off.
Well mixing the desire for nice roll off but not shooting everything in the noise floor (as Slog exposed at 38 does) that leads me to choose the darkest cine curve.. Cine1
I guess the A7s may have some similarities..
S
-
JB
I guess you understand the theory of banding in an 8bit codec as you only record 256 levels there are no 'spare' tones to find when you push the file around unlike a 1064 level 10bit file or 4096 12 bit file.
Of course it is all mudged up with compression and the fact that not every image you shoot is full of long slow tonal changes.
Exactly. Morgan's right.
I know that this guy: http://www.eugeniorecuenco.com/makings/making_nina14.html
wouldn't normaly hesitate to shoot with even I.phones and certainly GH2,3,4, Canons or whatever small cameras but in the end it's Alexas
and specialy in White tones (or dark) as in the N.R campaign because of the DR and the number of bit+profiles and the straighforward workflow in ProRes.
(even they would normally blow like hell later in post for the message)
I'm not sure if they used Arriraw but I bet they didn't need to.
And..oh yeah...it ain't 4K...
A LUT has to be applied in post for ex to the LOG footage to not look flat and they have to correspond otherwise it's guessing. But it's not a one way traffic as it can be done both ways (prod-post)
http://www.arri.com/camera/alexa/tools/lut_generator/lut_generator/
There are 1D and 3D LUTs and of course the 3D are really the holly grail.(changing brightness without altering saturation etc...)
Quite a complex world.
Quite frankly, when it comes to that, I think that Arri and Red (with the looks) are the most robust. I specialy think that Red did a very clever implementation, at least easy to deal with
or IMO easier than Arri for a non expert.
But refering to the questionner: "I've been reading that it isn't advisable to shoot in Log (i.e. sLog2) with 8 bit 4-2-0 color space" it's not really a question of Log but a question of 4-2-0 in what banding is concerned. There are simply limitations independently of shooting flat according to the subject. (as Morgan pointed in smooth tonal changes on a clean área).
Those limitations are particularly annoying if the subject treated is unitonal, very much like in the Nina campaign I linked above. It simply ruins it and the option to shoot DSLR or similar are not posible any longuer unless some sort of Raw can be done or 444.
There is a technique in post that is used to minimize the effect of banding but at the Price of grain added. Very Little can be done in this área at the Price point we are dealing with. Hey, don't they have to justify a 60.000 bucks camera?
-
here's a still export of a quick test we did with our a7s...stock slog2 /3200 iso AWB and a 2 second grade...2 still lifes
are from 120fps (defaults to apsc and 720p on this mode) tungsten lights/tungsten WB/ PP1/160 iso/ NO gradeing...
struggling with the metabones version3 adaptor and its freezes...version 4 of the adaptor comes next week and we will put
this little puppy on a paid job...will post results...try PP4 with its parameters, seems promising in lower ISO's
www.sanjaynarayan.com
-
We're into production this week and due to the speed and style I planned on shooting the majority of the campaign with the 70d, maybe some gh3 and even the blackmagic pocket.
After testing, I will probably shoot the majority of the footage with the RED scarlet and later in LA, the RED 1s.
I'm really camera agnostic, but overall nothing I use, own, rented or tried comes close to the REDs. The 70 d is ok, but thin, like most dslr cameras, in fact the gh3 has a more robust file though the 70d has a larger sensor and more control over dof.
Now, just loaded the technicolor log last night, will test it today, because the 70d is very prone to crushing the blacks.
All in all the 70d is a joy to use as the form factor is just about the right size with a wooden camera cage, allows for quick movements and fast action, where the RED1s are larger and slower, the Scarlet somewhere in between. The black magic pocket camera has a nice file, but the limitations of battery use and what it takes to make the camera really workable turns it into a small easy to use camera to a form factor as larger as a heavy dslr, so the benefits are limited, though in all fairness I'm just begging to explore the bmpcc.
Personally, I don't care about numbers, bit rates, whatever is advertised because those can fool you and the only thing that matters is the final look and if the camera allows you to work fluid enough to get the feel, concept of the shoot and color grade to the look.
One thing that bothers me after a few years of working PL lenses is going back to the canon lenses for digital cinema. The canon lenses are sharp and have beautiful roll off, but the breathing is so noticeable, even on wides like a 20mm that it's so annoying and obvious.
I guess there is a reason that PL's costs so dearly.
One things I've noticed is how well the old gh3 holds up. I'm not wild about the faux color it produces and wish it had a larger sensor for dof control, but in grading the gh3 get's close to the reds in grading which always surprises me.
BTW: I know RED is a love hate thing for most dop's and operators, but for the price, the final look, I still think RED does the best job of any serious digital cinema camera maker.
IMO
BC
-
Coots.
Have you found that Kowa 8mm 1.4? - seems a killer for the Pocket.
Im sure you know the SLRM 12mm and voigt 17 of course.
Kowa..
http://www.rmaelectronics.com/kowa-lm8hc-1-8mm-f1-4-manual-iris-c-mount-lens-2-megapixel/
You need a Cmount adapter and maybe to get some bit machined off (!)
S
-
Thanks for the feedback guys! Very helpful information. Sorry to bump into the current discussion.
One thing I have noticed, and was quite surprised to find, is that the noise present at ISO 3200 in sLog2 is rather substantial. I've researched some material and found mixed messages about exposing for the highlights vs ETTR when shooting sLog2. Have you guys found that sLog2, on the A7s, works best exposing a bit to the right? That seems to be NewsShooter's findings: http://www.newsshooter.com/2014/08/13/can-the-sony-a7s-really-give-good-skin-tones-david-carstens-has-the-answer/
I've had mixed results frankly, so maybe it's my newness to the camera and log video recording. I'm just trying to get a good clean image lol. Any tips? Thanks everyone!!
JB
-
Thanks for the feedback guys! Very helpful information. Sorry to bump into the current discussion.
One thing I have noticed, and was quite surprised to find, is that the noise present at ISO 3200 in sLog2 is rather substantial. I've researched some material and found mixed messages about exposing for the highlights vs ETTR when shooting sLog2. Have you guys found that sLog2, on the A7s, works best exposing a bit to the right? That seems to be NewsShooter's findings: http://www.newsshooter.com/2014/08/13/can-the-sony-a7s-really-give-good-skin-tones-david-carstens-has-the-answer/
I've had mixed results frankly, so maybe it's my newness to the camera and log video recording. I'm just trying to get a good clean image lol. Any tips? Thanks everyone!!
JB
Though I don't have or use an A7s, we do use flat logs in our cameras, from RED's gamma 3, to the technicolor log for our Canons.
Actually today just completed a "film" test of three cameras, our RED Scarlet, the 70D with Technicolor flat and the blackmagic pocket cc which has a flat curve.
Iso was 800 on the RED, 320 on the Canon and I think 400 on the bmpcc.
The results were with a flat curve all we're noisy, the RED most controllable in Cinex, not so much in Resolve 11.
The Canon was virtually identical to the RED in Cinex but blew one small highlight that should have been under the furthest highlight, which doesn't make sense.
The bmpcc had the sharpest file (by a long way) and from medium highlights down was tremendous, but didn't hold highlight detail as well as the other cameras.
What was noticeable on all three was the high amount of noise.
The RED always has some noise at 800 iso and resembles kodak vision film, but even the Canon at 320 iso had almost an equal amount of noise to the RED which is interesting,
because set with a normal still curve of neutral and faithful, shows no noise.
Once you really flatted a file, either in camera or later in post it accentuates the noise.
Personally it doesn't both me, (unless I'm shooting a key) as noise does not show on motion like it does on stills and it tends to smooth out banding and gradients in post grading.
So I assume, even though the Sony is based at 3200 iso, once you open up the curve to get a flat capture, the noise will appear. I assume that to be normal, (whatever normal is).
IMO
BC
-
Thanks for the feedback guys! Very helpful information. Sorry to bump into the current discussion.
One thing I have noticed, and was quite surprised to find, is that the noise present at ISO 3200 in sLog2 is rather substantial. I've researched some material and found mixed messages about exposing for the highlights vs ETTR when shooting sLog2. Have you guys found that sLog2, on the A7s, works best exposing a bit to the right? That seems to be NewsShooter's findings: http://www.newsshooter.com/2014/08/13/can-the-sony-a7s-really-give-good-skin-tones-david-carstens-has-the-answer/
I've had mixed results frankly, so maybe it's my newness to the camera and log video recording. I'm just trying to get a good clean image lol. Any tips? Thanks everyone!!
JB
with the zebras on, expose as much to the right as possible in slog2 with saturation bit bumped up, that is the mantra we are trying to follow...the fact that we are discussing 3200 ISO as BASE
itself is insane...noise is acceptable...IMHO A7s is the best low light sensor in dslr world right now and we've got it for a project which is mostly low light/lit with practicals...this camera needs
best glass though...our L canon zooms just don't cut it...i tried the zeiss primes at the dealer and this camera sings... in lower iso's with the right profile selected we're getting very good results
but needs more testing...i love the af on my 70d, suits my style, i wish the sony had af and stabilisation like 70d...i wonder what the two big boys of dslr world will bring this photokina...maybe nothing...
www.sanjaynarayan.com
-
BTW: I know RED is a love hate thing for most dop's and operators, but for the price, the final look, I still think RED does the best job of any serious digital cinema camera maker.
IMO
BC
Couldn't agree more.
Strictly talking from the post production area, and
Of course everything being relative to personal tastes,
I simply love to work with Red material and for a number
Of resons.
This is actually true that the Alexa brings apparently
A more straightforward workflow for 90% of the cases
But it depends how one sees it.
Red did their own route but what matters to me is that
They managed to bring the tools for any sistem in post.
Avid and ProRes requires roundtriping in the chain and
Is linked to Apple. Red works the same way on anything.
True that their gamma jargon is confusing but file implementation
Is nailed and a joy to work with in post. Specially when
versionings have to be done in batch in real time.
The looks that can be acheive are robust and filmic without
Needing coffees. The way they implemented the metadatas
Files is really great and specially noticiable when it comes
To deal with big volume and long editing. It gives stability
And fleibility. So far. I haven't noticed any banding issue
With any Red material. Yes, as Coot pointed, noise can be present
But IMO it tends to look like organic film grain.
For the costs of a basic Red system, I think that nothing
So far brings so much for the money invested.
As far as noise is concerned when shooting flat, as there
Is always the posibility to dedo anything that was done
In production (for the Red One maybe not) because
All curve being in the end a simple metadata independant
Of the raw material that has been recorded, it's never
Destructive. (again, I'm not in prod and as the R1 uses a different
Implementation than the Scarlet-Epic, it may well be that
Shooting flat on the R1 is different. I ignore this fact).
Also, I ignore if with the R1 the widest range is obtained
At 800 isos, wich I guess it is and makes sense).
Anyway, in a world of proliferation of new cameras every week,
Of raws badly implementated, of 4k on the cheap that nobody
Needs on the cheap, (R we shooting Marvels?), Red is
The only truth profesional affordable system, universal (no
Pro-f....g-Res) , flexible, capable to suits from indy to
hollywood super prods. Nothing else on earth so far does that.
Ps: I've Heard from Alexists that they hate to work with Red because they heat-up too much, because the fan is noisy, because the profiles are a mess, because this that or the other...
and then you go to the Redists who claim the poor resolution and speed and cost of the Arri and that the DR advantage is a mirage and bla bla...
IMO, when it comes to photographers doing motion work (like most in such a website as Lu-La), Red is the system.
Ps2: there is a calculation worth doing (you know exactly like the smoker who makes calculations on how much is spent every month in tabacco...)
Since the DSLR saga, how much money have we spent from the 5D2 to the latest generations, including all the accessories circus, the time in adaptation from
a new magic tool to another, the time spent in transcoding, the time spent in testings in order to fix common issues, in order to hack the cameras etc...
well...with distance I think that a Red system and an Autodesk Smoke and end of the story. No more mess. Good to go for 10 years while the rest of the world is testing
and burning the wallet in every japanese novelty and post prod tools like FCPX.
-
For the costs of a basic Red system, I think that nothing
So far brings so much for the money invested.
...
IMO, when it comes to photographers doing motion work (like most in such a website as Lu-La), Red is the system.
That was my feeling a few years ago when I bought my RED and it is still my feeling now: maximal bang for the buck.
If you like RAW workflow and colour correcting like a stills photographer, RED works that way. RED's killer feature is REDcode and the workflow.
My AF100 has been eBayed. My 7D is relegated to occasional use only. I use my iPhone more often (I have a neat ikan gimbal rig and Filmic Pro on an iPhone 5s which gives me better detail and higher bit-rates than either the AF100 or 7D. Sure, the DR is crap and the depth of field is deep, but that's actually an advantage for flying around on a gimbal).
But the RED? The RED is going to be my main production camera for at least the next five years. There's nothing announced or rumoured that's going to touch it, except for Alexas and similar exotica which are out of my price bracket and look set to remain so.
Anything else will be a b-cam for specific purposes.
Cheers, Hywel
-
That was my feeling a few years ago when I bought my RED and it is still my feeling now: maximal bang for the buck.
snip
Anything else will be a b-cam for specific purposes.
Cheers, Hywel
I guess it's all subjective.
I don't shoot cinema but want that "cinema" look however you get there.
Those online tests I see of every new camera all look the same to me, except for a few differences in highlight control, or sharpness, but on set in a real project things look different.
This week shot with the 70d cause the gig has quick movements, the 70d is perfect for that style. First I did a mix of about 70% 70d footage and 30% RED Scarlet.
In review the Scarlet footage looked so much nicer. Not pixel peeping, color test comparing nice, it just looked different, more crafted more important, more . . . cinema like.
So the rest of the week I shot 70% Scarlet 30% 70d and the results showed and though I can't give an exact example why, I just know how it looks.
Like Hywel I view the RED's as a long term purchase.
They're obviously heavier and more difficult to set up and run than a small dslr and small things like arms, lens mounts, modules, monitors, viewfinders are expensive.
Though when I add up how much I've spent on dslrs and all the stuff it takes to make them a semi serious motion camera, the cost isn't that far apart, especially considering the
dslrs are not that robust and everyone seems to change them out every year or so.
When you look at the new cameras from AJA and blackmagic that look to be less priced than the REDs (depending on model) those are large ENG shaped cameras that
weigh double that of a Scarlet/Epic or even a RED1 and still need dedicated accessories to make work.
In fact if cost is an issue, a RED1 is still very good and can be bought for 1/6 of the original price and it too will be viable for years.
My take is if your serious about shooting motion content, use a serious camera and of course serious is also very subjective.
I still have to thank RED for changing it all. Prior to Jim J, movie cameras were out of reach to anyone but rental companies and large video cameras were news gathering monsters that costs $100,000 and looked like . . . video.
RED shocked everyone by offering a cinema camera good enough for a blockbuster movie at a price that is about the same as a medium format still camera system.
IMO
BC