Andrew Reid

Legitimate twats

Can see how that workflow might be nice for photographers grading stills out of a RAW video sequence.

Canon: Let's make EOS R5 better for video shooters... *Proceeds to remove IBIS and introduce 8 second delay on video/stills switch* S1R is a bargain at current used prices. Did you upgrade the firmware when it basically got Leica SL2 specs for free? I think S1H makes a great photo camera. Great in low light, very nice EVF, good AF in stills mode but of course video AF not up to standard of competition. If S2H comes out and is smaller, lighter, same features, just as nice ergonomics, addition of internal ProRes and BRAW and has phase-detect AF on chip then it will be an end-game camera. I would literally sell ALL my E-mount lenses and invest in Sigma and Panasonic L-mount. This is Canon's desire too, avoid the 8 second delay by buying 3 more Canon cameras 🙂 Yes would be great to have an internal eND that automatically turns clear when you switch to stills mode. The time lost here is storing the filter glass somewhere safe where it isn't going to get lost or dirtied up. Controlled shoot or on set no issues, but out in field just putting it in a coat pocket isn't going to cut it.

It does come down to taste at the end of the day. Personally speaking I think sensor size and a particular lens combination is 80% of what defines the cinematic look. Other stuff can only spoil it or require workarounds to improve (like moire, 30fps, or limited dynamic range). Even then, the other things can work to the advantage of certain material. YouTubers like 30fps because it gives pre-recorded videos a more 'live' broadcast feel. Whether you choose to shoot Super 16mm with a vintage lens, or full frame with a clinically sharp modern lens, or prefer medium format lenses, or even full frame lenses on medium format that cover, or anamorphic lenses on Super 35mm, is purely a matter of taste. Personally I like them all for different projects. What DPReview Chris is saying isn't factually wrong about equivalence and matching a similar look across three different sensor sizes, but the sweeping conclusion he makes from it is wild. Just because he was able to make medium format look similar to APS-C at F1.8, his conclusion is basically "what's the point of medium format, nothing special about it"

To be clear there was not much overheating to begin with on EOS R5 original edition, it was a fake timer and initial firmware didn't even read the internal temps. Canon RAW is a very difficult codec to edit, I'd much rather have BRAW in Resolve or ProRes RAW in FCPX. These major NLEs aren't interested in supporting Canon RAW or making it work well as Blackmagic wants you to shoot BRAW with one of their products and Apple want you to shoot ProRes RAW. So I would rather impale both my eyeballs on cocktails sticks than shoot 8K RAW 60p on the EOS R5 C, just so you know 🙂 Can't make enough, shortage of raw materials like magnesium, worldwide chip shortages, lead times of 2 years on basic processors, and more.

Here's a suggestion, dump the EOS R5 and get a 5D Mark III with Magic Lantern RAW DNG, or a Blackmagic Pocket Cinema Camera 4K with original firmware 😉

You can't use Adobe Camera Raw controls with a TIFF I don't think?

I think that's just marketing speak from Sony. To me it shows that at the time of the interview they didn't even have a prototype out. They wanted to wait and decide what features to include, what the market research was telling them, and monitoring demand for that kind of camera. There was no rush to replace the old model. What do you mean we didn't get more than 4K60 10bit? We got 4K120p. They could have gone further with E-ND, it's s shame they didn't. Also I think A7S3 has a quad bayer sensor with high resolution mode but it is probably disabled to protect the A7R IV. Panasonic's original ship date for GH6 was December, so shipping in March or April is not going to upset me that much. It is Nikon who have the bigger problem because they put all their eggs in one basket with the Z9 and now can't make any!

Could a simple accelerometer, gyro and lidar module on top of the camera feed the same info into the computer? If camera always begins from the centre of a big room, you could measure distance to all 4 walls to see where the camera is moved. Smartphone sensors could measure tilt, orientation, etc. Or programme a lidar sensor (or 4) to keep track of a pattern on the camera and track the movement and calculate location of it within the physical space? Budget version would have to be a smartphone camera wouldn't it! They have the sensors, wireless communications, software side already in one device. Just all needs bridging up and feeding into the computer. Maybe try Unity on a Mac as well. Not as graphically spectacular but might be less taunting to get going. Are you going to hire a space and paint the walls green? 🙂 Or just a proof of concept tech wise?

I don't think they did? Got a source for this? A7S III took a long time because they wanted to establish full frame FX6 first. It was a marketing decision rather than anything technical. Plus A7S II was still selling well even 4 years later. So far it has only been delayed a few months, not years.

Don't forget you have large formats in cinema as well like 65mm, with similar image area size to GFX. RED WEAPON Vista Vision MONSTRO 8K at 40x21 is slightly smaller imaging area to GFX at 44 x 24 in video mode. 65mm Ultra Panavision is a bit larger horizontally at 52x23 Likewise Alexa 65 is also similar to medium format at 54x25.5 GFX frame for stills is almost as high as full frame is wide so not a small difference.

There is no option for DNG in Resolve export. You can only import Cinema DNG. This is all a bit like trying to import a JPEG into Photoshop and saving it as a RAW file! I don't think it can be done or even makes sense because what makes DNG handle so nicely with Adobe's processing is the fact that it is virtually uncompressed true sensor RAW data, and Canon RAW isn't - that stuff is already processed and a lot is lost.

X-H2 and GH6 are just on a similar release schedule to the other pro video mirrorless cameras such as the A7S III. They're not on the usual 2-year update schedule like the more consumer orientated stuff is. It was a 5 year wait for the A7S III!

This is a better video by far. Don't know much about this channel, maybe I should dive into his other stuff too? The point about having 100 megapixel for stills justifies the existence of the larger format just by itself because there are huge proportions of commercial photography and fine art that ends up printed very large and placed where viewers are just a few inches away. The absolute largest billboards tend to be very far away from people on a building, so you can get away with much lower resolutions for those. If you had the tech to put 100 megapixel into an APS-C sensor it would probably top out at ISO 400. Medium format at 100 megapixel can be cropped to full frame and you're still at 70 megapixel. A full frame camera at 100 megapixel probably won't be as clear in low light as a larger sensor at same res. I can comfortably shoot ISO 12,800 on the GFX 100 if I forget about pixel peeping at 100%. The same image on a full frame 100 megapixel sensor would probably be much noisier with less DR and worse colour. It's by no means a perfect system for autofocus, because Fuji did the same as they did with the earlier XF lenses, whereas some are slow to focus with a big noisy motor and some have an internal stepping motor which focuses really quick and silently like a modern lens should do. Compare for instance the 45mm F2.8 GF to 50mm F3.5 - the cheaper nifty 50 is much quicker to focus especially in low light. But the GF lenses have absolutely insane optical performance and resolution up there with a Cooke S4i. The main reason I got a GFX 100 was to use it with vintage lenses. These old Minoltas do NOT look like this on full frame... https://jonasraskphotography.com/2017/08/16/minolta-x-fujifilm/ I suppose I'll do my own YouTube rebuttal of DPReview dismissing medium format in such over simplistic ways... Just a shame about the misinformation out there funnelling everyone into silly opinions. We want informed customers otherwise camera industry goes down the toilet.

I don't like to be forced into this split personality way of working really. Imagine if you're on location in some beautiful place and want to capture stills at the same time as video, quickly before the moment's gone. You can't ask nature or streets to pause like a video game whilst you reboot into Video OS 2000. It's one of these things that you just can't justify being forced into. Even things like separate GUI or exposure settings between video and stills mode should be a matter of choice. Quickest way to shoot both is to have an all-purpose stills mode, with PSAM and then a video button. Samsung NX1 got it right. Tap a button to instantly get 16:9 frame in stills mode and to shoot video. No matter how technically interesting it is to have a Cinema EOS OS and Stills EOS OS on one camera.... the benefits don't outweigh the amount of missed shots there will be. If you want an identical shot in video mode and in stills mode, and nothing has changed in the light from one second to the next why would I want to change exposure or have to set the same exposure twice for two modes? I could be snapping merrily away in stills mode, nailing the exposure and all other settings, then switch to video mode and it will be completely off because it had been set earlier for a completely different scene? Who wants that? Does the EOS R5 C actually offer all of that or is it a crippled subset? Assist tools, shutter angle, etc. is on the GH5 since like 4 years ago? S1H and Blackmagic have LUT support, and so on. So how about adding all that to the EOS R5 C in a normal way?... there is no need to hive it off into a Cinema EOS operating system that takes ages to boot up. This thing is targeted at them! EOS R5 C is a hybrid cam! I completely accept it may be ok for you. I can only say that from my point of view it's a pretty big flaw!

I don't think it's possible as Canon RAW isn't really quite "raw" in the way Cinema DNG is? I could be wrong but it is unlikely there would be enough benefit in the conversion to make an app worthwhile to make?

At first I thought you were going to tell us all to get off our arses and get on our bikes! I am all for a hike around the British countryside with a camera the size of a match box. Just to be clear, smallest camera wins, or best shots? And don't forget small lenses. Smallest lens must count for something 🙂

There is no "might" about it my friend, it is all to do with the lens and how much the sensor will see of the image projected by it. No, it won't change anything to do with focus or focus "roll off". The gap is microscopic even on a front-side illuminated sensor and focus is a property of the lens combined with how much you can see of the image it projects into the camera body. The gap between pixels on the sensor can only influence the quality of the signal going into that pixel, in terms of things like noise and dynamic range. Panasonic is pretty good. When I brought out Pro Color for Sony, I did one for Panasonic. The Sony version sold at a ratio of something like 50:1 more, even though EOSHD at that time had a roughly equal amount of Panasonic and Sony users reading it. The demand wasn't there for the Panasonic cameras. And sensor size has not much to do with colour science at all really, as long as your sensor is rammed with pixels and has a noisy image. BM Pocket Cinema Camera original with the small 1080p Super 16mm sensor was able to do very good colour, but that has more to do with having a very good codec, high data rates and a sensor that performs well below ISO 800. Of course BM colour science itself is well setup, well tuned out of the box, good skintones - but so is Panasonic's. The idea about assessing the aesthetics of sensor size is NOT to make everything equal. It's very simple to put the same lens on 3 different sensor size cameras isn't it? Yeah this is what happens in Mattias Burling's blind-tests a lot, they are fun but really pretty much down to chance which shot has some appealing aspect that connects it to the viewer. Sometimes a camera will win because of an extra ray of sunlight rather than something to do with technical abilities. It's been proven a while back by Zacuto's Shootout too, with the GH2 able to go toe to toe with RED and ARRI just by lighting the set well enough. Look at Kai Wong for another example. Thing is, to be a good photographer you don't need to understand the inside workings of a camera, but you do need to be a good photographer. I'm more bothered about the latter, and the fact our culture seems to be holding mediocrity aloft as some sort of authority on creativity, just because it appears to be on level with the public and shouting in a loud obnoxious voice to thousands of subscribers.

Then again... You can't expect too much insight from someone who subscribes to a gun nut channel https://www.youtube.com/user/ForgottenWeapons And to Tony Northrup https://www.youtube.com/user/niccollsvideo/featured When Toneh is your touchstone for all things creative inspiration you know you're in trouble

The other myth busting episode has a big boooobie as well, and I'm not describing Chris Nichols. As far as I can tell they are shooting at ISO 6400 on the A7S III which is a digital gain on the base native ISO. The dual native ISO kicks in at 12,800. So had they gone to a proper high ISO like 25,600 the A7S III would have been squeaky clean and A7R IV would be really noisy. It's nothing to do with viewing prints or blowing stuff up. A 12 megapixel full frame sensor will see more in the dark than a 60 megapixel full frame sensor, it's just science innit?

They dismiss a lot and gloss over an insane amount, and it makes you wonder why. If they're only talking about shallow DOF as being the primary advantage of medium format, or portraying it this way - in a myth busting video - you have to dismiss 99% of the truth and focus on 1% misinformation otherwise it wouldn't work as clickbait. But I think mainly Chris and Jordan dismiss the incredible creativity behind medium format and lens selection because they don't understand it. They don't understand why you might shoot a close-up of a face at F11 on medium format, they dismiss the resolution of a larger sensor and the low light advantages as well, they also dismiss the video capabilities of something like a GFX 100, because they're your usual run of the mill Cansony shooters who take 1 or 2 seconds over a shot of a pavement or a wall, stick it in a video and call it art. In common with nearly all the "leading lights" in the clickbait industry I never see any images from these people that rise above the merely boring (some don't even qualify as eye candy!) but it would be great if for the next myth busting video Chris and Jordan could bust themselves by shooting some portraits on medium format vs full frame, and looking at the rendering of a classic medium format Hasselblad V lens vs your autofocus Sony, and maybe going even further and looking at the resolution of 100 megapixel vs whatever is the max on a Canon full frame camera (50?) Not a small difference is it!

How dependant on coding is Unity? Do you need to learn a language or is it more of lego kit of existing libraries and engines that you can build a game or immersive 3D environment with?

It's not the case with digital where it is about how much light the sensor absorbs, not just how much light the lens is projecting. You can still have a noisy image at F1.2 It is up to the sensor to gather the light projected onto it. Some sensors like the Blackmagic Production Camera 4K with global shutter have a lot of front-side mounted circuitry that get in the way of using more of the available surface area for the diodes and microlenses. Of course in video we also need to take into account exposure times, frame rates, etc. because higher ISOs to compensate for higher frame rates, shorter exposures, result in less signal to noise ratio, thus less light in the end result. Nothing boring about the any camera let alone one as capable as the GH5 if you have good subject material to shoot and the right light. The full frame look is popular because like slow-mo it adds a special sauce to mundane scenes... that is the look of the lenses at fast apertures on a large sensor can be very beautiful. So to increase sensor size again with medium format does the same but more. Alas it still will depend on the talent behind the camera and what you're shooting, as any camera no matter how capable can be used in unappealing ways! I've seen enough puke HDR landscape shots from a GFX 100 to know that the camera's usually not to blame!!

I have always been curious to check out the Unreal Engine. Emulating a lens, a camera, lights, all so advanced now in game engines. Will be interested to see what you discover, software and hardware wise. There are a big studios in Australia now that really push the boat out and make all sorts. Dare say they can sell a lot of their virtual assets to other studios as well! Virtual production asset marketplace anyone?

What do you mean when you say "magical"? It's a bit of a strange word you can read all sorts of meanings into. Also you have to take the lenses together with what sensor size they look most interesting on. Oddly enough a lot of my full frame lenses look more interesting on a GFX camera even though they're designed for a full frame sensor. Some look better, some don't work. Likewise, put the vintage Canon Dream Lens 50mm F0.95 on Micro Four Thirds and the magical look is lost. Larger sensors have magical technical properties as well. More light gathering abilities per exposure, and usually higher dynamic range in RAW. That's not to say you can't fake it with smaller sensors by combining multiple frames like smartphones do and other advanced DR and noise reduction techniques, but the larger the sensor the cleaner the image all else being equal. GFX for me is magical, it has a different look with ALL of my lenses compared to full frame. Of course I have more lenses designed for full frame but the fun is in trying these on an even larger sensor, and capturing images with a look I've simply not been able to do before. I hope we can think in terms of matching lenses to cameras, not in basic terms of tech specs or shallow DOF. There are beautiful lenses and looks on ALL formats. Even smartphones with their computational optics and apps. Kern Switar 26mm F1.1 I would never trade in just because it only covers a relatively small Super 16mm sensor. The look is special. Canon Dream Lens I would never sell because it vignettes on medium format GFX mount. Medium format I would never give up because that's unique as well. So yes there is magic about a certain sensor size - both creative magic and technical - and in certain lenses when combined with particular sensor sizes. Please do not listen to the click weasels and their oversimplification equivalence BS.