Jump to content


Photo

Some guy sold his Ursa Mini Pro to buy an FS7


  • Please log in to reply
168 replies to this topic

#41 Samuel Berger

Samuel Berger
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 663 posts
  • Cinematographer
  • Seattle

Posted 16 November 2017 - 10:50 PM

Tyler, the menu system on my camera is much simpler. Sony should follow their example. Look at all my menu options laid out for me.

 

410b.jpg


  • 0

#42 Robin R Probyn

Robin R Probyn
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1904 posts
  • Cinematographer
  • Tokyo

Posted 16 November 2017 - 10:55 PM

That handle winds the film through right ..?


  • 1

#43 Samuel Berger

Samuel Berger
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 663 posts
  • Cinematographer
  • Seattle

Posted 16 November 2017 - 11:08 PM

That handle winds the film through right ..?

 

You wouldn't believe how many people actually think that.


  • 0

#44 Tyler Purcell

Tyler Purcell
  • Sustaining Members
  • 3730 posts
  • Other
  • Los Angeles

Posted 17 November 2017 - 12:09 AM

Tyler, XAVC edits natively in Premiere, FCPX and Davinci (at least). I've just finished supervising post on a feature shot in 4k XAVC, and the whole thing was edited and finished from the 4k XAVC masters


Umm... Ya can't playback 4k XAVC material in real time with multi-layers (which is how actual editors work), it doesn't work. One track? Yep no problem. Multiple tracks? Nope. Anything outside of a very basic grade? Nope. By contrast, I can playback 6k Red Code in real time (23.98) on DaVinci with power windows and up to 3 layers. 4k XAVC on the same system? Nope, not gonna work.
  • 0

#45 Tyler Purcell

Tyler Purcell
  • Sustaining Members
  • 3730 posts
  • Other
  • Los Angeles

Posted 17 November 2017 - 12:21 AM

These cameras are not that difficult to learn. No more than learning the tricks of a Panaflex, when you've only worked with Arri.


Ehh, I mean reading and remembering things based on language/terminology that doesn't make sense in your mind, is a very different world then repetition with your hands, like loading a film camera. The problem is; Sony's (and panasonic for that matter) menu system, just doesn't make logical sense. Forget the F5/F55, lets talk about A7S, lets talk about FS5 and FS7, lets talk about the cameras without direct access controls on the side.

As discussed above, there are programmable buttons on the side of the camera, that take you instantly to anything you want. That's super cool, but it shouldn't be necessary. I just can't get over those sort of "issues", then you add the hyper sensitivity of the imager, then you add the post issues, then you add the cost... I mean, none of it makes any sense. But.. it's kind of an untapped market. The Canon C series cameras are bogus due to their physical form. The Blackmagic cameras aren't quite ready for primetime. The Alexa's are WAY too expensive and the Panasonic is too. So Sony has this little niche and they're going to town with it.
  • 0

#46 Tyler Purcell

Tyler Purcell
  • Sustaining Members
  • 3730 posts
  • Other
  • Los Angeles

Posted 17 November 2017 - 12:22 AM

Tyler, the menu system on my camera is much simpler. Sony should follow their example. Look at all my menu options laid out for me.
 
410b.jpg


Shit, that's complex bro! My XTR is far simpler :D
  • 0

#47 Samuel Berger

Samuel Berger
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 663 posts
  • Cinematographer
  • Seattle

Posted 17 November 2017 - 12:32 AM

poop, that's complex bro! My XTR is far simpler :D

 

I will say I'm having trouble finding zebra and focus peaking settings.


  • 0

#48 Robin R Probyn

Robin R Probyn
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1904 posts
  • Cinematographer
  • Tokyo

Posted 17 November 2017 - 02:25 AM

 

I will say I'm having trouble finding zebra and focus peaking settings.

 

The film effect is pretty bad too.. 


  • 0

#49 Brian Drysdale

Brian Drysdale
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 5070 posts
  • Cinematographer

Posted 17 November 2017 - 04:24 AM

I want what's in camera to require little to no correction in post. So I generally "tint" the image in camera to get a specific look I'm going for. This would be done with filtration and color/white balance. In the past I've done this with lighting mostly, but now that we have such killer digital technology that's so easy to adjust... why not do it in camera?

 

You can do lots of looks in the Sony Menus, once you spend the time in advance of the shoot either learning or setting them up, rather than on the set.

 

DITs used to do this all the time on Sony cameras and store the settings on memory sticks. It's probably not done so much these days because it's now commonly done in post, rather than the camera. Experienced DITs could also do it on the set if something new was required for a scene. They were rather more than data wranglers and many were experienced DPs.


  • 0

#50 Phil Rhodes

Phil Rhodes
  • Sustaining Members
  • 11947 posts
  • Other

Posted 17 November 2017 - 06:01 AM

I get asked this question - about FS7 vs Ursa Mini - fairly often. My feeling is that FS7 does somewhat more picture-wise, but the Blackmagic is more heavily built. Principal points of differentiation include the fact that the FS7 has a more compatible lens mount but needs expensive upgrades to shoot ProRes, whereas the Blackmagic really isn't that usable without the viewfinder and shoulder kit, so both are really more expensive than the headline price would suggest. Raw on the FS7 is really expensive and available as default on the Blackmagic, although I don't think that this sort of camera is likely to be used on the sort of production that genuinely needs raw very often.

 

Both are fine enough, I have shot more on the Blackmagic and like it.

 

P


  • 0

#51 Robin R Probyn

Robin R Probyn
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1904 posts
  • Cinematographer
  • Tokyo

Posted 17 November 2017 - 06:33 AM

 

You can do lots of looks in the Sony Menus, once you spend the time in advance of the shoot either learning or setting them up, rather than on the set.

 

DITs used to do this all the time on Sony cameras and store the settings on memory sticks. It's probably not done so much these days because it's now commonly done in post, rather than the camera. Experienced DITs could also do it on the set if something new was required for a scene. They were rather more than data wranglers and many were experienced DPs.

 

 

Yes sort of bit of a contradiction re Tylers dislike of the Sony.. it has a lot of menu items for changing the most tiny increments of in camera looks.. you can change just about everything... but now you can also burn in a 3D LUT you have designed yourself .. which is far more subtle than even the myriad in camera settings..  if you rent the camera for a day.. set up some charts etc.. you can get a look ,or looks you want.. save it to an SD card.. and just load it in when you use that camera.. or User LUTs you have made in Resolve etc.. if anything there are too many choices .. thats why a lot of people just shoot Cine EI.. you don't have to worry about all that stuff.. and then just throw on a LUT if you want it quick and dirty..  


  • 0

#52 Phil Rhodes

Phil Rhodes
  • Sustaining Members
  • 11947 posts
  • Other

Posted 17 November 2017 - 07:04 AM

I do think that the Sony menus are rather overcomplicated. I mean seriously, who's going to start screwing around with matrixing in the field, especially these days?

 

I've always been very cautious about people looking at a chart on a vectorscope and saying "I know better." That sort of thinking has to be taken with extreme caution.

 

P


  • 0

#53 Robin R Probyn

Robin R Probyn
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1904 posts
  • Cinematographer
  • Tokyo

Posted 17 November 2017 - 07:18 AM

I do think that the Sony menus are rather overcomplicated. I mean seriously, who's going to start screwing around with matrixing in the field, especially these days?

 

I've always been very cautious about people looking at a chart on a vectorscope and saying "I know better." That sort of thinking has to be taken with extreme caution.

 

P

 

 

Yes thats the point really.. no one should be messing around with matrix in the field.. unless its a DIT who really knows what he/she is doing.. but if you do,do it pre shoot.. you can get a look you like.. or 100 of them.. and put them on an SD card and have that set up in seconds.. but yes you don't want to be doing it straight after taking the camera out of the bag morning of the shoot.. who is doing that..? or make up your own LUT.. what could be more precise than that..

 

But yes as Stuart says .. I think most people are shooting LOG and leaving all that to post.. BUT if you do want a very particular look in camera.. like Tyler does..the Sony's are your friend .. as you say.. very full matrix set ups.... not when your shoot day.... thats like packing your parachute after you have jumped out of the plane..


  • 0

#54 Tyler Purcell

Tyler Purcell
  • Sustaining Members
  • 3730 posts
  • Other
  • Los Angeles

Posted 17 November 2017 - 05:26 PM

It's not necessarily about a "particular" look, more like getting a look that doesn't require reworking in post.

I just want one button access to 100% adjustable Kelvin, Shutter speed/angle, Frame Rate and ISO.

I also want VU meters on the display, I want zebra's, histogram and focus peaking.

See, I don't base my life on what the monitor looks like. So I could care less about what LUT the camera is using during monitoring. Heck, I'd be happy with a B&W monitor, that would work far better for me because it's less distracting. To be honest, during the SD ENG days, I rarely colored my work. Today when I shoot film, I do one light transfers and they're perfect. Can't digital do the same thing? When I shoot with the Dragon, Alexa, Blackmagic cameras, I don't have these issues or restrictions.
  • 0

#55 David Hessel

David Hessel
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 137 posts
  • Other

Posted 17 November 2017 - 05:38 PM

You cannot get usable images out of a Sony.

 

Do you realize that saying "You cannot get usable iamges out of a Sony" what you are really saying is "I cannot get usable images out of a Sony". There are plenty of examples out their that prove many others are more than capable of getting great images out of a Sony.


  • 0

#56 Samuel Berger

Samuel Berger
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 663 posts
  • Cinematographer
  • Seattle

Posted 17 November 2017 - 05:46 PM

The FS7 image and tools seem pretty useful for a lot of things - but the main question always is "what is its cinematic potential?"

To me - almost none.

I've been through Sonys and I do not find the image to be "cinematic" at all.
Sure, you could put some lenses you can't afford on it, and slap a lot of filters on it, but you can do that to any camera. Seeing how much the FS7 costs, I don't think it's anything special.
  • 0

#57 Samuel Berger

Samuel Berger
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 663 posts
  • Cinematographer
  • Seattle

Posted 17 November 2017 - 05:51 PM

5 reasons the URSA Mini is better than the Sony FS7

1. The URSA Mini comes from people with Australian accents. I think Australian accents are really freakin’ cool. The Sony FS7 comes from people WITHOUT Australian accents. That’s like seriously nowhere near as cool. Like, what were they thinking? Even the GPS Mapper on my iPhone has an Australian accent. Lame.

2. The URSA Mini has a symmetrical shape to it. The FS7 has like, weird curved out parts at the back that aren’t even the same on both sides. How am I supposed to look at that without getting all weirded out? It’s like “don’t they even know how to make a square where they come from?”

3. The URSA Mini has a flip-out screen on the side where normal people can look at it. The FS7 screen is at the top and in all the Sony promo shots there’s a guy looking down on it from above. So what – this camera is only supposed to be for really tall people? That’s totally discriminatory. Why is Sony trying to appeal to heightists? That’s like really not cool Sony. So you’re telling me I’m too short? Is that it? Like shorter people don’t have rights to use a video camera too? Not cool.

4. The URSA Mini can shoot in ProRes. The FS7 uses one of those dumb compressed codecs called XAVC. As if making it sound tough by putting an X in front of the regular old AVC thing is going to make us forget it’s just a compressed codec – nothing at all like ProRes. ProRes RULES.

5. Yo! - FS7, what’s with that long extender-handle on the right side? That thing looks like the part of a male elephant that he uses to do sexy stuff to a female elephant. And you totally just copied it right from the URSA Mini anyway. If you can’t think up anything original on your own and have to go around copying other people’s ideas then you shouldn’t get to win any of these online contests. Go home Sony FS7!


I had eleven more reasons the URSA Mini is better than the Sony FS7 but I figured I could keep it just to the really important ones because… well, because they speak for themselves obviously.


  • 0

#58 Stuart Brereton

Stuart Brereton
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 3077 posts
  • Cinematographer
  • Los Angeles

Posted 17 November 2017 - 06:03 PM

I When I shoot with the Dragon, Alexa, Blackmagic cameras, I don't have these issues or restrictions.

Those cameras were all designed from the ground up as digital cinema cameras, Sonys weren't. Originally they were broadcast cameras, and the complicated menus and deep level of control that they offer is part of that legacy. It's not for everyone, and if you don't feel the need to use them, that's fine. We are at a stage now with digital cinema that all the professional cameras are pretty damn good, and there's a camera for every situation. It's perfectly fine to have preferences for the equipment that you use, but when people make ridiculous statements like the one that prompted this Version 2.0 of the Sony discussion "You cannot get usable images out of a Sony", it is of course going to prompt others to disagree.


  • 0

#59 Brian Drysdale

Brian Drysdale
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 5070 posts
  • Cinematographer

Posted 17 November 2017 - 07:45 PM

5. Yo! - FS7, what’s with that long extender-handle on the right side? That thing looks like the part of a male elephant that he uses to do sexy stuff to a female elephant. And you totally just copied it right from the URSA Mini anyway. If you can’t think up anything original on your own and have to go around copying other people’s ideas then you shouldn’t get to win any of these online contests. Go home Sony FS7!
 

 

This is nonsense since the FS7 was announced in 2014 and the URSA Mini about the same time. The handle was a key design feature of the FS7 at the time and it wasn't an after thought, if anything it had it's roots in the Aaton. .


  • 0

#60 Tristan Noelle

Tristan Noelle
  • Basic Members
  • PipPip
  • 51 posts
  • Cinematographer
  • North Hollywood, CA

Posted 17 November 2017 - 07:50 PM

5 reasons the URSA Mini is better than the Sony FS7
1. The URSA Mini comes from people with Australian accents. I think Australian accents are really freakin’ cool. The Sony FS7 comes from people WITHOUT Australian accents. That’s like seriously nowhere near as cool. Like, what were they thinking? Even the GPS Mapper on my iPhone has an Australian accent. Lame.
2. The URSA Mini has a symmetrical shape to it. The FS7 has like, weird curved out parts at the back that aren’t even the same on both sides. How am I supposed to look at that without getting all weirded out? It’s like “don’t they even know how to make a square where they come from?”
3. The URSA Mini has a flip-out screen on the side where normal people can look at it. The FS7 screen is at the top and in all the Sony promo shots there’s a guy looking down on it from above. So what – this camera is only supposed to be for really tall people? That’s totally discriminatory. Why is Sony trying to appeal to heightists? That’s like really not cool Sony. So you’re telling me I’m too short? Is that it? Like shorter people don’t have rights to use a video camera too? Not cool.
4. The URSA Mini can shoot in ProRes. The FS7 uses one of those dumb compressed codecs called XAVC. As if making it sound tough by putting an X in front of the regular old AVC thing is going to make us forget it’s just a compressed codec – nothing at all like ProRes. ProRes RULES.
5. Yo! - FS7, what’s with that long extender-handle on the right side? That thing looks like the part of a male elephant that he uses to do sexy stuff to a female elephant. And you totally just copied it right from the URSA Mini anyway. If you can’t think up anything original on your own and have to go around copying other people’s ideas then you shouldn’t get to win any of these online contests. Go home Sony FS7!
I had eleven more reasons the URSA Mini is better than the Sony FS7 but I figured I could keep it just to the really important ones because… well, because they speak for themselves obviously.


One reason the FS7 is better than the URSA Mini.

1. The client/producer wants to use the FS7.

I've been on sets with the FS7 more times than I can count this year. It is the go to camera for basic, work-a-day content. Interviews, docu-style/reality, event coverage, promo videos, web shows, comedy sketches, industrials and educationals, etc. At this point it's what producers know and trust and often own, despite it's quirks.

Is the URSA mini pro a better camera? Probably. Do I bother spending my time convincing a client it is when they've used the FS7 before and know the workflow and results? Nope. Do I refuse to use the FS7 if they provide it for the shoot? Again, nope. You just figure out how to make it work for you and shoot it, unless you can afford not to work, of course.

That's why it makes sense to me this fellow would trade down to an FS7 from an Ursa Mini if they want to be a WORKING operator or DP.

I've had issues with the FS7; it's not perfect. I shot a feature on one last year. It was the director's camera. Our previous feature was on a 5DMk3 so this was a step up. I shot SLog3 and, despite my research, misjudged the waveform and underexposed some key scenes. My reference monitor was too small to judge noise. It was an early firmware before Sony added internal noise reduction. I did some post NR and managed to salvage the scenes and the director was happy with the image in the end. I learned a valuable lesson. My recent work on the FS7 has been great.
  • 0


Paralinx LLC

Opal

rebotnix Technologies

Rig Wheels Passport

Visual Products

Technodolly

FJS International, LLC

Willys Widgets

Gamma Ray Digital Inc

The Slider

CineLab

Ritter Battery

Broadcast Solutions Inc

Metropolis Post

Abel Cine

Tai Audio

Wooden Camera

CineTape

Glidecam

Aerial Filmworks

Media Blackout - Custom Cables and AKS

CineLab

Willys Widgets

Tai Audio

Metropolis Post

FJS International, LLC

Abel Cine

Glidecam

The Slider

Ritter Battery

Aerial Filmworks

Opal

Rig Wheels Passport

Technodolly

Paralinx LLC

CineTape

Gamma Ray Digital Inc

Visual Products

Media Blackout - Custom Cables and AKS

Broadcast Solutions Inc

rebotnix Technologies

Wooden Camera