Jump to content

Can we talk about "The Crown"?


Recommended Posts

 

Tyler, I have hundreds of framegrabs here on a hard drive, taken from Sony originated dailies, all of which have had nothing done to them a 'base LUT' applied. All of them look perfectly presentable. I'll be happy to post some if you want, then you can see for yourself.

 

I'd like to see them as well, I think it would be beneficial for those who seek out this information. You could make a thread for it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think I might have mentioned this earlier, but the Panasonic EVA-1 is also worth considering. Panasonic makes strong cameras, and the dual native ISO of the VariCam systems is a great asset when shooting low-light stuff without getting FPN/Digital grain. It's also about $7,000 - which for such a camera is a steal, at least in my opinion.

 

Sony makes great cameras too, though I think the cameras in the price range of the EVA-1 are pretty much last-gen technology. Canon, on the other hand, is a company I try to avoid. Their cameras all seem to have quirks to them that make each camera less than ideal for its intended purpose. They also appear to me to be overpriced vs. features with other manufacturers - and your mostly stuck with the EF mount, which is not one of the better ones in my opinion.

 

Of course, with the EVA-1 you're also still stuck with an EF mount, but it is what it is.

 

Of course, you could always go with the URSA Pro. It's certainly no slouch, and while it has its issues - it is one of the few Netflix-approved Cameras in that price range (maybe the only one). Not saying Netflix has all the answers or anything, but getting that camera over something else might well be a good option. It shots RAW 4K, takes any lens mount you can basically throw at at, has good color and DR. Yes, it has FPN (like all BMD cameras do), but keep it under 1600 ISO and things are good to go.

 

I'd say from a purchasing standpoint right now, the URSA Mini Pro 4.6K leads its price-bracket, as much as I don't want to admit it. I'd say the reason why you don't see it used more professionally is because things we general consider professional don't shoot with cameras in that price category.

Edited by Landon D. Parks
Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

I'd like to see them as well, I think it would be beneficial for those who seek out this information. You could make a thread for it.

Samuel, if you PM me I'll send you a link to gallery of frame grabs. I'm not going to start a new thread. If Tyler wants to see them, I'll post here.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Premium Member

If Tyler wants to see them, I'll post here.

Not going to happen. He will ignore this until somebody changes the subject. Havent you posted plenty of frame grabs before? Didnt he ignore all of them until the subject changed? Or did he passive aggressivly imply that you dont know the difference between good and bad looking footage? I cant remember.?

  • Upvote 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'd say from a purchasing standpoint right now, the URSA Mini Pro 4.6K leads its price-bracket, as much as I don't want to admit it.

 

Landon, after your initial suggestion I looked at the EVA1, it seems to have that hype behind it like the AF100 back in the day. I just don't see very much about that's interesting. Maybe after it gets more of a following there will be strengths pointed out.

 

 

I'd say the reason why you don't see it used more professionally is because things we general consider professional don't shoot with cameras in that price category.

 

I completely believe this. But, I also think that BMD's fanbase complained about it too much. All that negativity pollutes the atmosphere. They kept saying stuff like "pink cast", "had to send mine back 3 times before I got one that works" etc...and those are the comments that folks remember.

 

But yes, perception is powerful.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Premium Member

It looks great and it doesn't even have a LUT! it was shot with natural light.

I don't think that looks good at all. I think it illustrates exactly what I don't like about the F55. I struggled endlessly to get warmth out of the cameras because you can always dial it back.

 

I look at the desaturated sky, blah. I look at the desaturated faces and how perfect the "white" is, blah. The image is lifeless and requires seriously talented artists in post production to bring the image to life. Where MANY OTHER cameras, require nothing but a simple lut.

 

The only thing "good" about the video are the compositions and the lensing. The capture device to me, looks lifeless and uninteresting.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Premium Member

Tyler, I have hundreds of framegrabs here on a hard drive, taken from Sony originated dailies, all of which have had nothing done to them except a 'base LUT' applied. All of them look perfectly presentable. I'll be happy to post some if you want, then you can see for yourself.

You have a "style" of shooting (as I've seen countless times) that works well with Sony cameras. My style of shooting does not.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Premium Member

I don't think that looks good at all. I think it illustrates exactly what I don't like about the F55. I struggled endlessly to get warmth out of the cameras because you can always dial it back.

 

I look at the desaturated sky, blah. I look at the desaturated faces and how perfect the "white" is, blah. The image is lifeless and requires seriously talented artists in post production to bring the image to life. Where MANY OTHER cameras, require nothing but a simple lut.

 

The only thing "good" about the video are the compositions and the lensing. The capture device to me, looks lifeless and uninteresting.

 

Tyler, as always, you're right, we, the rest of the world, are wrong. :mellow:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't think that looks good at all. I think it illustrates exactly what I don't like about the F55. I struggled endlessly to get warmth out of the cameras because you can always dial it back.

 

I look at the desaturated sky, blah. I look at the desaturated faces and how perfect the "white" is, blah. The image is lifeless and requires seriously talented artists in post production to bring the image to life. Where MANY OTHER cameras, require nothing but a simple lut.

 

The only thing "good" about the video are the compositions and the lensing. The capture device to me, looks lifeless and uninteresting.

 

 

You cant get warmth out of the camera .. Meaning its too "warm" or you cant get the warmth out..? .. regardless you must be only shooting custom ..the matrix is where you should go for these adjustments .. or just WB with a color bias .. this is page 1 stuff.. 10 bit Slog you have over 1 billion possible colors.. if you cant get basic color temp differences in your post work flow you clearly have not understood some very basic concept.. sorry to be blunt.. but this is the only logical answer to your Sony woes..

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You have a "style" of shooting (as I've seen countless times) that works well with Sony cameras. My style of shooting does not.

For the sake of clarity, could you explain what elements of my shooting style 'work well' with Sony Cameras? And what elements of your own style do not?

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Premium Member

For the sake of clarity, could you explain what elements of my shooting style 'work well' with Sony Cameras? And what elements of your own style do not?

 

Well, I mean it’s not like you or anyone else for that matter, lights the same every time. So I guess this comment would be a “generalization” and based solely on having a similar discussion before where you gave examples of your work. But from what I’ve seen, you have a lot of dark scenes with minimal lighting (content depending of course), pushing the contrast ratio, which is where the Sony cameras shine. Most cameras can’t really go there without introducing a lot of noise, especially in the blacks. The Sony’s can deliver very smooth and silky blacks. At the same time however, most of the stuff I’ve seen has been heavily graded and what I’d considered “tinted” in one way or another. This would be either through the mid tone’s in post or in some cases even highlight tinting, which is easy to do on set with gels. In fact, I’d say the only thing I’ve ever seen shot with a Sony F series camera on the big screen that looked “natural” was Cafe Society shot on the F65. Mind you, I think the F65 is a good looking camera naturally.

 

To me, a good camera and/or “medium”, needs to have a pronounced warmth to it. Something that is inherent @ the proper white balance. What I like is warm, saturated images with lots of vibrance and “pop”. I like everything in my frame to be “seen” rather then just go black. Where I have absolutely used gels to create mood, the warmth and saturation generally never changes. I will always have something in my frame that is warm, even if for example my character’s face is blue to insinuate night. I generally don’t like mucking with stuff in post if I can avoid it. Yes, there are times where you make mistakes and things don’t quite work the way you expected, so you’ve gotta fix them in post and/or there is a reason for the sake of story or mood where something needs to be changed. These things happen, but when they do, it’s a rare occurrence.

 

This is how the F55 always looks to me, desaturated colors with no “pop” or vibrance

 

Sky that just looks like poop and is uninviting with a very “flat” over-all feel just no contrast.

 

Love this example… this is EXACTLY what the F55 always looks to me:

 

Now this… with the RAW recorder? Looks MUCH better, but it’s heavily graded.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

To me, a good camera and/or “medium”, needs to have a pronounced warmth to it. Something that is inherent @ the proper white balance. What I like is warm, saturated images with lots of vibrance and “pop”. I like everything in my frame to be “seen” rather then just go black.

 

I really don't understand this comment. A properly white balanced camera should be neutral in tone, not warm, or cold for that matter. If I want warmth from a camera, I'll dial it in with a custom white balance or with filtration. In fact, I always carry an 85B and a 81EF when I'm shooting with Sonys so that I have flexibility to move away from their presets.

 

I watched the clips you posted, but I have to say I would be extremely cautious about making judgements from looking at YouTube videos. How were they color-timed? What were the conditions on the day? There is no information on any of the clips. How do you know that Desert clip is not a faithful representation of what it actually looked like? How do you know that the RAW clip has been 'heavily' graded?

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

It's a huge problem, have you looked at the pricing on the canon EOS mount cine style zooms? They're like $18 - $20k used! poop man, for that much money, I can have a set of Zeiss standard speeds AND an old-school PL mount zoom.

 

The EOS mount also has another issue, when you invest in glass, you're investing in a mount standard that pretty much nothing else but Canon still cameras are compatible with. So 4 years down the road you want the new XYZ camera and it's PL mount, now what do you do? In the case of Samuel, like me he also likes film cameras... so there goes any EOS glass.

 

I just thought I'd mention that I just a few minutes ago read from Canon that, if you want to, you can send in the C300 Mark II to get modified from PL to EF and vice-versa. Of course, whichever lenses I get stuck with as a result, I'd have to sell if I didn't use. However, you CAN get a PL to EF adapter. What you can't get is the other way around. So if I choose the EF mount I can easily use my PL lenses. I feel a bit more confident with the EF mount because of this. Also because I used to use Nikon lenses on my Eclair NPR in the 90's and there is a Nikon to EF adapter.

 

So you might ask, what about my film cameras? Well, I'm selling the Techniscope Arri 2C and that's the only film camera I have with PL mount. My Eclairs all have Cameflex and C-mounts, and everything else is C-mount. So I think for my specific case the EF might be a good choice. My BMPCC uses EF through an adapter and while the electronics aren't that great, the actual glass is good quality.

 

My Ursa Mini 4K is PL mount, but I'm selling that too and first $2000 gets it, hehe...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Premium Member

I really don't understand this comment. A properly white balanced camera should be neutral in tone, not warm, or cold for that matter. If I want warmth from a camera, I'll dial it in with a custom white balance or with filtration. In fact, I always carry an 85B and a 81EF when I'm shooting with Sonys so that I have flexibility to move away from their presets.

Yea they "should" be, but EVERY camera "tints" the image slightly. If you put 5 cameras next to each other and set them to the exact same white balance, using exactly the same lenses, they'd all have a certain "look" to them. In the case of most Sony cameras, they tend to lean very much towards the whitest white possible. This is because the Japanese, as I found out, really like "white" imagery. They want faces to be a very pure white with very little natual warmth.

 

I generally don't use color tinting filters on digital cameras. If I want to change color, I will use gels or stick to altering the white balance of the camera. Outside of a dramatic color shift, I can't think of a reason to use color tinting filters with a camera system that's infinitely adjustable.

 

I watched the clips you posted, but I have to say I would be extremely cautious about making judgements from looking at YouTube videos.

Unfortunately, 9 times out of 10, the vast majority of content is being consumed in this way; internet streaming and through platforms like Vimeo and Youtube where content creators (like myself) distribute their shows, without the use of professional tools. It may sound stupid, but this new web series I'm starting production on in a week, is going to be shot quite a bit on film, but distributed on youtube.

 

So I love youtube videos, especially one’s that have very little work done to them. They really show what your average bloke can do because frankly, MOST OF US are just your average bloke. Many of us have jobs outside of the entertainment industry and/or are not making money from our own content creation. So when we sit and discuss different things like cameras, it’s very important to bring up both sides of the coin… what the camera looks like in the hands of a professional and what the camera looks like in the hands of an average bloke.

 

When I look at different camera systems, the first thing I do is watch amateur and equipment reviewer videos. I can usually look right through the “technical” mistakes and understand what the camera system is all about. Then if I have interest, I’ll try the system out.

 

My #1 concern is always how good the image is without any messing around in post. I go out and shoot lots of messed up footage, color balance way off, under/over expose, different ISO/shutter combinations, etc.

 

My #2 concern is always ease of use. This is not just with menu’s, but also the physical size/weight/shape of the camera. To me, if I can’t figure out the menu in a few seconds, I don’t want the piece of equipment anywhere near me. It could be the best thing ever made, but when you’re stressed out on a production and/or you have an inexperienced (with that camera) operator using the camera, it needs to be self explanatory. This is mainly because any gear I’d own, will have to be rented in order to get back the money put into it initially.

 

My #3 concern is codec’s and how they integrate into the top three editing software packages. Pro Res is native to Avid, Premiere and FCPX with zero transcoding or proxy files necessary. This is also the case with XAVC-I BTW, so I’m not complaining about F5/F55.

 

My #4 concern is storage cards, lensing and accessory compatibility. I like having a system that is very compatible with the rest of the world, without the need for “manufacturer specific” items to make the camera do anything. For instance, this is quite a problem with QXD and XSX cards as I’ve found out over the years. This is why I vastly prefer SD, cFast and SSD storage solutions.

 

Finally, I look at the trends and calculate amortization over the years of ownership. Is it actually worth owning the piece of equipment or is it worth sucking it up and renting when I need it. This is probably the hardest thing in my book because you want the camera, but in the long run is it worth it?

 

I got my pocket cameras in 2013 and where they're "long in the tooth", they still create perfectly acceptable imagery for the vast majority of people. They were a great purchase in the long run and that to me, is what it's all about.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Okay, the FS7 is nothing like the F55.

 

 

This looks absolutely awful, is this really used professionally? Stuart's images on the F55 were a lot better than this FS7 stuff.

 

 

It just looks like another day of NHK TV programming.

Edited by Samuel Berger
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yeah this particular Sony fs7 video was a bit of a laughing stock when it was released.. not showing the camera at its best..crap grade and very flat ,overly lit footage.. it probably was shot by an NHK off shoot production co.. :).. there are many better examples ..

Link to comment
Share on other sites

My #1 concern is always how good the image is without any messing around in post. I go out and shoot lots of messed up footage, color balance way off, under/over expose, different ISO/shutter combinations, etc.

 

​Aha .. this could be where your problems lie then.. you have previously said you like to get the image as near to perfect as possible when you shoot.. and your very fussy about it..?.. if you are shooting Slog as above.. no wonder you have problems ..

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yeah this particular Sony fs7 video was a bit of a laughing stock when it was released.. not showing the camera at its best..crap grade and very flat ,overly lit footage.. it probably was shot by an NHK off shoot production co.. :).. there are many better examples ..

 

If you have any, I'd love to see it. So far nothing compares to the C300 Mark II....which, according to my extensive research in the last two days, will be likely be replaced by a newer Canon by Summer.

But even so...I just don't get why the C200 isn't seen as "professional", everything I see from it is better than the FS7.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

If you have any, I'd love to see it. So far nothing compares to the C300 Mark II....which, according to my extensive research in the last two days, will be likely be replaced by a newer Canon by Summer.

But even so...I just don't get why the C200 isn't seen as "professional", everything I see from it is better than the FS7.

 

 

Just google it.. there must be literally thousands of hours of fs7 footage online.. I have used the fs7II once last year on a corp shoot but I don't have the footage.. it went back to the US.. Im never editing my footage..Im not arguing about the C300 image.. Ive always like their REC709.. my personal problem was the design of the actual camera.. and then the C700.. over priced.. not enough and way too late..

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I can pull up a 4K FS7 image tomorrow off of my drive with no light just as it is (actually it's basically after-sunset) if you'd like.

 

If it's not too much trouble, that would be cool, I'm curious to see what you've shot and how it looks. Thanks!

 

 

 

 

Just google it.. there must be literally thousands of hours of fs7 footage online.. I have used the fs7II once last year on a corp shoot but I don't have the footage.. it went back to the US.. Im never editing my footage..Im not arguing about the C300 image.. Ive always like their REC709.. my personal problem was the design of the actual camera.. and then the C700.. over priced.. not enough and way too late..

 

I'm actually downloading a 10GB HD video of FS7 footage shot by some fellow of apparent competence. But I won't know if his work is any good until it's downloaded. It seems to be an hour long of FS7 clips with commentary.

 

I sure wish the C200 was seen as "professional", after seeing Philip Bloom using it I'd buy it in a heartbeat.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I have never read or heard such a load of crap that is going on here by numb nuts . Stuart just stop responding !!

 

Well, you know what, I'm learning a lot from this thread, including the back and forth between Tyler and Stuart, and I think your personal attack isn't teaching anyone anything. I'm sure there are folks just lurking in the forum, in the same situation as me, and with the same questions, and when they come here they will get something out of this free exchange of ideas.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yea they "should" be, but EVERY camera "tints" the image slightly. If you put 5 cameras next to each other and set them to the exact same white balance, using exactly the same lenses, they'd all have a certain "look" to them.

 

That may or not be true, but what you said was that the image should have a 'pronounced warmth' to it. That sounds like a lot more than just variances between cameras.

 

Unfortunately, 9 times out of 10, the vast majority of content is being consumed in this way; internet streaming and through platforms like Vimeo and Youtube

So I love youtube videos, especially one’s that have very little work done to them.

 

You used these videos as an example of what Sony cameras look like. Whether or not content is consumed this way is immaterial to how these camera natively look.

 

You have quite obviously avoided my question. How do you know how those YouTube clips were graded?

 

Simple answer is: You don't.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...