Leaderboard

I saw one part when he was saying that it was a little annoying that they did not get exact time remaining for recording. The same guy said that it was totally unacceptable a cine camera did not give exact time remaining on the card. OK, it is written cine, but it is still a 2200 USD camera, and h265 by its nature is variable bit rate. Simple example on a sitting interview with a static background and the bitrate goes a lot lower, while have dynamic shot with lots of movement or movement in the shots and the bitrate goes up drastically. The just couldn't find any thing to say positive at the camera except about Nikon color and his luts, that he sell!!!

Looks fantastic. Any interviews with the cinematographer / crew out there? They used Panasonic GH7 + Lumix 12mm F1.4 for most part https://www.eoshd.com/news/in-ny-and-la-theatres-january-major-new-movie-magellan-is-shot-on-the-panasonic-gh7/

And when he also did a test of standard Vlog vs Arri log, the standard Vlog looked a lot better to me. Someone else and I forget who now (but it was someone UK) also did a side by side between the S1II and S1RII and all though he made a case that the S1II was better, about 90% of the comments including myself, disagreed. I was playing with building a new custom non-log profile based on a download from LUMIX Lab, but heavy rain has stopped play 😒 Agree as it stays on and there is less risk of touching the glass and getting fingerprints on it or having to put it somewhere safe every time. I also had mine flip down rather than up as it looked less crap. I might go back to it now I back to primarily shooting one video designated unit as I could make a VND work better with that, but as above, was working on a non-log profile with an ISO of just 80 which in most scenarios, would remove any need for ND. But ground to a halt thanks to the crap UK weather...

Something else I forgot to say was the difference between the S5II/S9 video and the S1RII is how clean/nicer the latter is. Working with all 3 on the same timeline, especially with lower light stuff, it’s very clear which is which because the S5II/S9 footage whilst not muddy, seems muddy when compared with that coming from the S1RII. This is partly why I have moved the S9 into a very limited secondary role where along with the S5II, they will be responsible for pretty much just 3 scenarios resulting in 3 pieces of footage, albeit in the case of the S5II, that means full length wedding ceremony and full length speeches. Anyone using these cameras together will probably confirm the same difference.

The screen is the gateway drug. I am much weaker than @BTM_Pix and after handling one briefly for 15 minutes ordered it 3 days later. It's coming tomorrow. I'm not bothered by the "lackluster" DR results or anything. I also bought it in hopes the firmware updates will add even more value, which is a big no-no but I heard ProRes LT is confirmed coming.

Wow, I'm part of a bunch of Sony communities, and I've never seen any complaints about this kind of issue. Especially SAR, where they nitpick every single last possible (and impossible) thing.

I'd argue it is the MOST important because without the camera, you don't have a picture. It is the small differences between the latest sensors and codecs that's the unimportant thing. In cinematography, our job isn't to worry about the costumes or set pieces, that's the job of someone else. So lighting and camera are the most important for a DP. What has happened is the gap between the top-end i.e. ARRI and the cheap stuff has closed up. This has been going on ever since the start of the DSLR revolution so it's not a new thing but there's never been a smaller gap that exists now, for example between something like the Alexa 35 and a $1000 used Panasonic S1H. By the way although Magellan has beautiful content and really nice camera-work, the sharpness of it and the deep DOF isn't everybody's cup of tea. It does look a bit too soap opera in parts of that trailer, I think. It looks very different to an IMAX shot film. So there's big differences between formats and lenses still... The same cinema focal length for example on 16mm has always looked vastly different to same on IMAX or large format. Also there are big differences in grading style, camera movement style, and so on. I think most relevant for us is that you don't need to make a massive rig any more to get good results. It's horrible having the weight as a one-man DP. Probably why they used such a small camera on this.

Yup, I'll be using mostly adapted lenses for both cameras. Thinking of picking up the EF 70-200/2.8 L IS II for the R8. Already have the 50/1.8 STM and 55-250 STM, which I can't wait to use on the R7 for reach. Thinking about the 17-55/2.8, too, but will probably just go for the Sigma 18-50/2.8 for the best AF performance. Will also be picking up more weather-sealed Meike EF/RF adapters with the swappable VND/UV filters, as I like the one I got for my R50V. Saves a lot of hassle carrying and swapping front-mounted VNDs. And yes, already have a Sabrent 512GB V60 UHS-II card for my R50V, and I'll be picking up more for these cameras. Regardless of positioning, Canon STILL forces the camera to shut off when the card door is opened. 🤦‍♂️

For comparison its his ZR test At 0.1 High S/N ratio, DR is 6 stops. In his R6III test its only 3. Not only he is not curious at all why its so low, but doesn't even notice the drastic fall of it (from 8.26 to 3.04). As a reviewer I would dig into the data. I seriously feel he's not interested about what he's doing anymore. He's like "AF is good". What? How you tested that? Where is the evidence that its good? Canon website says its good, what else you know? And good for who? and why people should pay near $3k to have "good AF" when their current camera already has good AF? I assume R6III AF is "better" than R6II, but I need to see the evidence in practical situations. That's the job of someone who reviews gears for living.

I really do think the camera is the least important aspect these days though. Lighting, set pieces, costumes, locations, etc. are so much more important. Magellan could have been shot on pretty much any camera from the last 10 years and looked just as good, because everything else about it looks good and it's clearly made with skill and talent. 28 Years Later was a huge disappointment for me as a film (28 Days Later is one of my favorite films of all time) but it's still a gorgeous looking film that was shot on iPhones. If it was shot on a ARRI Alexa 35 it wouldn't have changed what I disliked about the film. And watching it, I didn't think to myself "jeez, this would've looked so much better if they'd film it on a better camera." A LOT of gear went into making it look as good as it does, but the camera itself was pretty low on the list, I think.

Suddenly Gerald finds no problem in DR and 10 stops is good enough to declare "cameras peaked".

Well, if you talk about eras, I absolutely agree, but if we consider a single "historical period", the camera doesn't make a difference, except in extreme cases. We have seen many examples over the years. Your works with the mighty GH2, Independent films shot with the GH2. Blind tests where the GH2 was mistaken for a cinema camera. We have the shorts shot by Filippo Chiesa with a GH5S which has a better look than this film with the GH7. We have the blockbuster shot with the FX3. The reality is that in common use cases, the camera doesn't make a difference. The difference is made by the lights, the set, the lenses, and the skill of the DOP. Certainly, with a more limited camera, the DOP is forced to work harder with the other tools. In this forum, everyone is still nostalgic for the 5D MKII with Magic Lantern, which scientific tests have shown does not have more than 9 stops of DR, and yet here, we are declaring the death of a camera over 13 or 14 stops of DR. Run&gun is different of course. Other extreme cases that come to mind are wildlife documentaries where you don't have the possibility to set up cinematic sets (up to a certain point), and therefore the camera and lenses make the difference between having or not having the result. Here, in fact, RED cameras and their crazy mix of resolution and frame rate (and pre-recording) still reign almost supreme. Yet, as the article I posted wrote, action cameras are also used out of necessity simply because it is the only way to film certain situations, and then it is up to the colorist and editor to manage to prevent you from seeing the difference. Returning to the film with the GH7, I personally don't like it at all. The look is banal, heavily color graded, and with heavy grain added in post. But I believe it was a personal taste of the authors and that it was not something done to cover the limitations of the camera. Perhaps more the limitations of the production budget. I repeat, this is a very personal opinion.

The gatekeeper is talent.

Thankfully, we're so far beyond the camera being the gatekeeper to accomplishing beautiful cinema. There's no real technical limitation affecting the cinema we see here. I've always been partial to portrait focal lengths because of what they take away from an image, but it's great to see more creative cinematographers shooting wide. Lubezki pretty much hangs out there most of the time.

Thank you for sharing, Andrew. This is looking great. I will watch it as soon as they show it in the cinemas over here. I am still curious to test a GH5 MK II due to it been tested by slashcam for displaying great rendering of texture and offering one of the best 4K images of any dslms out there in that regard. Its optional 1.4 crop mode makes it a great digital 4K S16 cinema camera. GH7 in 4k pixel per pixel mode might be closer to 16mm crop though. I would love a M43 sensor sized lumix pocket cinema camera with flexible cropping, like S16 1:1.66, S16 4:3 with full Super16 width, 2/3" 1:1, you name it. And while you are at it, Panny please give it an internal ND and still keep the EVF and great battery life plus full size Hdmi.:)

For now as a Nikon shooter, I am more inclined to shoot NRAW and do the renaming trick to R3D, than to shoot R3D as I am finding that the Nraw has more DR than the R3D and you can shoot the normal version that takes only about 370 mbs for 24 fps in 4k and 700 mbs for 6k. This is a little test of conversion of Nev to R3D. You have NEV (Nikon RAw), NEV but using the RED lut, Then the Nev to R3D renaming and finally the REDraw file. then So I need to make a little bit more test, with skin tones etc, but they are quite close to me, even more so that even between the different red cameras like the Raptor and Komodo, their is some color difference. The yellow are a little bit more saturated and the image is a little more toward yellow in the Nikon ZR redraw R3D files. On side by side test the ZR was the more yellowish of the red camera. So it might balance out in the end.