“The Departure” – First footage from the Sony VENICE

Comments (25)
  1. 9-0 says:

    Wondering why they would use lenses with such strong characteristics to demonstrate the capabilities of a new camera. Surely neutral lenses like ultraprimes would have been more indicative. Please nobody say “film look”

    1. Daniël Jawadnya says:

      One of it’s strengths is of course the ability to shoot native anamorphic aspect ratios. Perhaps a more modern set would have been a better choice.

  2. paulinventome says:

    Shooting through soft, aberration ridden anamorphics means you could have shot this on anything and achieved the same results. A F5 would have looked the same. So as a sample of what the camera is capable of it’s of little use… A shame. But if Sony want to show off their sensor they ought to make sure what’s in front of the sensor isn’t mush.

  3. LOLA says:

    Every one of these camera footage posts brings out the comedy gold in the comments.
    PS: Good god that’s a beautiful car.

  4. Christopher Bell says:

    I don’t want to be “that guy”, but I guess I will… Why does the headline of the article say “‘The Departure’ – First footage from the Sony VENICE”? The first footage released was “THE DIG” and that was released over two weeks ago.

    1. Matthew Allard ACS says:

      “The Dig” was released online just after “The Departure”. “The Departure” was actually shown in London before “The Dig” in LA.

  5. T Nails says:

    Sorry, I know there’re trying to show off the camera’s capabilities but why this short? I can’t think of a better way to alienate the narrative market they covet than to showcase their camera with an amateur effort. I remember when they showcased their A7s with amazing footage about smoking fish in Scandinavia. The camera rose to the content. Here the content is crap and hence reflects badly on the camera. Whatever good I try to glean from the camera I’m utterly distracted by the shit show on screen. Please, someone give me the number of their promotional department. I’ll serve this camera up better ten fold.

  6. Peter Harkness says:

    Watching the “behind the scenes” video, I struggle to see any appreciable difference between the Venice camera video and whatever camera they used to shoot the behind-the-scenes video. To my eyes the behind-the-scenes video looks a tad sharper. Streaming video compression is the great leveler. Until these tests are streamed in such a way that the 16bit/HDR/4K/Whatever video can travel from the server to our displays uncorrupted and uncompressed, these camera test videos are inadvertently sending the message that you might as well buy a GH5 and put whatever money you have IN FRONT of the camera.

    1. Matthew Allard ACS says:

      It’s impossible to judge camera quality on platforms like YouTube.

      This is why using a high resolution camera is fairly pointless for any online distribution. The amount of compression that is used by YouTube negates any advantage a high end camera has over a cheaper one.

      This camera has been designed for high end motion picture capture and for the material to be displayed on the big screen. On a YouTube platform it won’t look much different to most other cameras.

      1. Peter Harkness says:

        I totally agree with you — and there’s the rub! Those high end motion pictures you are referring to are increasingly — soon overwhelmingly — TV shows and original movies streamed over platforms exactly like YouTube: Netflix, Amazon, VUDU, Hulu, etc. I don’t think it’s controversial to say that video streaming to small screens is rapidly becoming the way 99% of all content is finally consumed, and that soon 99.9% of all filmmakers will never see their work in a theater. So why use the fancy camera? Even though these streaming platforms are trying to incorporate higher resolutions and HDR or whatever, there’s not enough bandwidth to support the resolution arms race from HD to 4K to 8K and beyond, so these platforms simply drop bitrates. The result: everything looks “pretty good” no matter what it is shot on, and no one is impressed anymore! When you say “On a YouTube platform it won’t look much different to most other cameras”, I think you are inadvertently delivering a message of hope to DIY filmmakers, and a dire warning to everyone else!

        1. Matthew Allard ACS says:

          Very true. You are correct is saying that so much of todays content is getting shown online. Until companies come up with higher bandwidth streaming services, everything looks similar online. Camera manufacturers harp on about bitrates and colour spaces, but as you already said, most material ends up online where the compression effectively creates a level playing field.

    2. Larry Templeton says:

      I don’t know why YouTube doesn’t offer an upgrade to companies who really value the data rate (image quality) of their content. I’m sure Sony would be happy to pay a little bit to guarantee a high bite-rate file to their audience.

      1. Matthew Allard ACS says:

        Yeah it is a pity no such service exists.

  7. Matt says:

    First from the BTS video. Second from the FINAL film


  8. mic.o.y says:

    This looks awful. I am sure the camera will be great, but who hires such talentless people to shoot promotional footage? The framing, the lighting, composition (or rather lack thereof)… What are we supposed to evaluate here? Dynamic range did not get pushed, neither did the iso, the lenses make everything look soft, again, what is this?

    1. Larry Templeton says:

      The “story” was porn-grade but the lighting, colors and skin tones that he showed off were impressive. I think there’s more content there than appears to be at first.

    2. Eric Girgash says:

      Whoa easy Ed Wild is a baller, and a BSC member who’s a seasoned vet.

      1. T Nails says:

        Just get him a director and script and I’m sure he’s fine. I had a hard time separating the content (or lack there of) from the IQ. Perhaps the worst roll out film of all time.

      2. mic.o.y says:

        Doesn’t change the fact, that this is garbage. If he puts his name on it, it hurts his credentials.

        1. Matthew Allard ACS says:

          This isn’t going to hurt his credentials one bit. For all intensive purposes it’s a test shoot.

        2. Matt says:

          Many factors contributed to this video. Director choosing the shots. Time and location limitations (as mentioned in the BTS i.e. what they were allowed to use for lighting). Who had the final decision on the grade which could be anyone up the chain. Plus one video will not make or break this camera. Now if many sources of footage all reveal the same issues then ….

  9. Zachary Will says:

    Idk, I feel like the color grade crushed the blacks too much and makes it a little hard to judge the dynamic range (which I’m sure is pretty good).

  10. Jan Becker says:

    OMG typical Sony. This is so not-magical. Film supposed to be about dreams, magic, beauty, light and fantasy. This looks way to ‘real’.
    I’m 100% sure the camera is absolutely amazing and I can’t wait to use it myself but the creative here sucks in terms of showing off a camera.
    I’m assuming that 16 bit color requires different creative and technical workflows. The amount of color is just overwhelming.
    I saw the last Woody Allen movie in a high end screening at Paramount and the 16 bit color from the F65 looked like shit. They fixed it for the regular theatrical release.
    There will be much better footage I’m sure.

  11. Eric Girgash says:

    Wow the most exciting thing about the new camera is the full frame chip. can’t believe these guys weren’t jumping to utilize the whole sensor!

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Technology Demo

DigiTach offers a variety of great news. This includes new cameras, new netbooks, new TV, new audio gadgets, and, of course, the latest Internet news.

Sponsored Listings