jindrich

the guy apparently says he shoots with gh4 or so, then i guess they shot the BTS with those?

That's a shot under the sun with a silver reflector on his face, it can't get harsher than that. A Canon or a Sony would show nasty specular highlights on the skin. Same with the other takes, nothing more revealing that a Fresnel and smoke to show what a sensor can do, or clippping the red or the green channel. Have you ever shot with an ALEXA? This is Youtube compression, but it looks promising, so far. Fuji engineers say with flog2 and 10bit Prores they got an extra stop above and below. The past X were under 12 stops. Let's see

I'm very excited about this camera, not just because I dropped Canon to go Fuji a few years ago, but because, apparently it FINALLY FIXES the issues the X series had vs the competitors in the PHOTO side: -AF and specially AF-C -Ergonomics, proper joystic, BULKY AF-ON button on both body AND grip. Then, there's the video side. IMO Fuji is the closest to an ALEXA among all mirrorless, because of how it handles Specular Highlights and clippped highlights roll off. But it still wasn't there, with its limited >12 stops. Now with FLOG2 and Prores 422.... are the REAL 14 stops finally there? If so, we finally have our 1st gen ALEXA. Scherlock was shot at 2k and Prores 422, not even RAW. The XH2s will add AF and some IBIS to that. Fingers crossed. It looks VERY promisig in this video, with HARSH sun, Clipped red and green, and FIRE, yet it still looks very organic !! (unlike sony, canon, red) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=twI377KRwV4 look at 12:30, 7:30, and the end, those shots are brutal for any sensor

Netflix approves the S1H to shoot content for the platform... ... yet 100 out of 100 DP's would choose an ALEXA Mini rather than the S1H In fact, pretty much EVERY DP would choose an ARRI over everything else, not to mention a stupid DSLR/mirrorless (to shoot professionally, not that DLSRs are stupid). On a professional shoot, the cost of the cameral body rental is essentially NEGLIGIBLE. An ALEXA Mini is €500/day or €1.5k/week. A basic commercial costs typically €250k to make. Why are people still thinking pros/producers/directors/DPs would choose anything else than the tried and tested (ARRI), specially when their reputation is on the line, when it MAKES NO DIFFERENCE to the budget!!!

Right, poster says from Estonia, while the videos look from Hungary. I'll try to contact the people who shot that.

Wow, that looks stunning, really, very well shot and edited too. Skin tone looks gorgeous, really organic. Footage like this is what makes me believe XH1's log+Eterna is the closest you can get to ARRI color and highlight-rolloff under €10k, there's no harder test than a spot light and smoke to see how that works out. I'm currently testing Fuji/Sony before buying. Would you care to comment a bit about the shooting? -Was that source HMI, Tungsten or LED? -Did you use AF-C or was just MF -lens left at fixed focus point and keeping distance to maintain focus? -Which lens did you use the most, and how did they perform for video? I remember the 35mm f2 having A LOT of Breathing. Currently testing 56mm (on XT2), lens is stellar, but slow AF. Did you shot 3 (or more) passes, each with the different 23, 35, 56 ? -ISO 800? Did you close at f4 or more? -Was this shot at 50/60 or 100/120fps. -I presume Zhiyun with IBIS also on? -Shot in Flog and then Eterna applied, or anything else? Many thanx.

Thx for your answer. The MINI isn't like an ALEXA classic, which indeed weights a ton and slows everything down. If this production couldn't afford an additional £700 for a MINI (INCLUDING in the £700 a set of CP primes, tripod, follow focus and Mattebox), then that was really a micro-budget project. It's Sign O' times, I guess, when Producers think they can produce professional content for peanuts. For everything I know shot professionally, Camera rental cost is essentially negligible, as the bulk goes to crew, location, insurance, props, hotels, travels, etc etc, with LIGHTING being the solely technical item that might require quite some €€ (HMIs, 150kva trailer and crew).

The video looks really great, and to be shot and finished by a single person in such a short time is quite an achievement. But the image still looks "digital" to me, which is mostly the main problem with ANYTHING but ARRI, under artificial lighting. My question is, for such a professional project (and I know how cash trapped labels are these days), isn't there an additional 700 quid for the overall budget, to rent an ALEXA Mini (includes set of primes, MB, FF, Sticks etc) for one day? An AMIRA is even cheaper to rent. Thx.

another example of the IQ the XH1 is capable of:

Here's a long, somewhat professional, video-centric review of the XH1: And here what it can do under professional hands: I'm about to try out the camera soon, but I'm almost decided. Fuji+Flog+Eterna is the closest I've seen to an ALEXA under €10k, highlight rolloff, color, and motion. On top of that, lenses are superb, it's a perfect hybrid camera -it's great for photos-, the new Linear ManualFocus solves focus by wire issues, the High EVF with focus peaking is perfect for MF, and the XH1 along with the XT20 make a great A/B combo system -for peanuts.

Andrew, following your logic, this years' best camera BY FAR is Sony's F35, as there's some available s/h for the same amount you paid for your 1DC (£5000). So actually, you got a terrible deal. Therefore, the Rating should be: -1) Sony F35 (from a quarter of a million down to just £5000) and at a VERY long distance, everything else.

Ok, here's a reality bite on 4K from the real world. The first worldwide event broadcasted in HD was back in 1990, the FIFA World Cup (football/soccer) held in Italy. Sony's (defunct) HDVS system was used back then and it was big news all over the industry. Now fast forward more than 2 DECADES and simply take a look around: in 2012, while there's finally plenty of HD content, roughly 50% of TV networks are still broadcasting in SD. In SD, not 1080 not 720. This means that 22 years later, we're still NOT into a 100% HD world. And now people expect 4K to happen overnight? It takes decades for the world's (or USA+EU) entire infrastructure (networks, households, cinemas, satellites..) to change from one system to another AND for prices to come down notably, so the ordinary citizen can afford the appliances to take home. At this point in time, 4K is just a Marketing fad pushed by some manufacturers as a sales argument. Yes 4K is nice and will happen someday, but we're a decade, at the very least, away from it. I've never seen a producer request 4K and I don't expect this to happen for a looooooooooooong time. 4K is NOT required for High-End Commercials, or Broadcast or High-End TV drama or even for the typical Hollywood comedy/drama movie. 4K only has a place in the $100M+ blockbuster. And even then many just don't seem to care (Hugo, Avengers, etc) As for the the argument that 4K future-proofs content, well, tell a producer or production company that you'll use 4K (and notably increase the overall costs) because they'll able to sell the same product again in 10 years and they'll all have break up laughing. Productions must be amortized in a year or less. In a decade from now, everybody will work for another company, so who cares really? Besides, since when do people want to see a 10 year old movie or TV drama? Wellcome to the Real World.

In the Movie World NOTHING is certain. Remember the last flop, Disney's John Carter, $250M in production plus another $100M+ for marketing, and Sony is expecting a net loss of $200M. If people dislike 48p (I personally raise hand) this might be another flop. Simple as that.

The entire world population has been "trained" into 24p=fiction, 48/50/60= crude reality. This has been going on for over half a century. People won't "sooner or later get accustomed to" movies in 48p, because those 48p will simply cease to exist. Movies have production costs of $80M and over, a flop will cost a fortune to investors; a few blockbuster flops might cost a billion $ to the studios. If 48p won't work once, specially on a blockbuster, it's over.

Yes, the camera white labelled "model C nº22" has a 1D-X logo rathen than 1D-C and it's used all over the place in the BTS. This could mean nothing, like it was just a chassis prototype, or indeed, that they're both the same camera (other than the ethernet/phones plug). Neither is yet available, but I guess a way to find out would be to load a 1D-C firmware into a 1D-X and see what happens. It wouldn't be the first time Canon puts the same components and changes just firmware, but in this case, given the price difference it would be too sick for such a think to be real.

Rather than think about cameras, we should think about market segments and production types. There's Social, Web, Corporate, Commercials, Broadcast (ENG, EFP and docos), high-end Drama and Movies. Each of this categories require a different type of camera, and even if all  could be shot with the same one, the sort of required crews, resources and budgets are so far apart that it makes the chosen camera irrelevant. If BMD made an ALEXA for $1k, you still wouldn't be able to shoot a Lancome commercial, a TV drama like "Sherlock", or a proper Movie, because those are $100k/day productions. I've been there and I can tell you. High-end cameras from Sony and ARRI are more than safe. The battle will present on the base segments, down from Social, up to low-end Commercials/Broadcast, where Canon, Nikon, RED, Panasonic, JVC, Sony… etc, and BMD as a new player, will fight to get a prominent place. The DSLR revolution, along with the Desktop-editing revolution, shown us you could get up to those levels of quality (low-end Commercials/Broadcast), with just a $3k camera and cheap lenses, which until before was unheard of. For the first time you could own all the tools because they were so cheap (well, except for HMIs). Another very awkward concept in this field was also introduced: owning rather than renting. There won't be a single winner, because there are too many segments in video production and as many different price points, for all those that believe in buying rather than renting: $3K, $5k, $8k, $10k, $15k, $20k. $20k being an HD S35 camera, with S-Log, EOS-to-PL, 60p, XLRs, NDs, and added 10bit 444 recorder, can somebody build, distribute and support on a world level a similar one for much less? Not unless Apple gets in.

[quote author=Simco123 link=topic=631.msg4624#msg4624 date=1335295155] From what I've seen D800 is plagued with moire and its so call clean HDMI improvement are very minor. Low light is not a patch on the 5DIII and post processing the 5DIII yield a lot more detail and DR. Nikon is still behind Canon in dSLR video quality, any advance user with some clue will not be buying a D800 with an external recorder. [/quote] Have you tried the D800? From all the possible video modes, if setup correctly in 24-25-30p and FF mode (exclusively), it produces a better image than the 5D3, with better DR and more resolution. It does have a bit of moire, yes, but it will be gone with the Mosaic filter, which is already in development. When paired with the Ninja2, again properly setup, the image quality improves VERY noticeably, without the chroma noise, blotching artifacts and all the other DSLR issues pros complain about. Resolution improves as well. With the advantage of a HDMI out, the Ninja2 not only turns the D800 into a Broadcast 8bit 4:2:2 50-220Mbps ProRes/DVxHD camera, but it also gives it a very convenient external Hi-Res TFT (with an own viewfinder in the works), with peaking, zebras and false color. The included (pre-post) I/O point marking is the icing on the cake. All for less than a 5D3 with a Zacuto EVF. Add a SoundDevices MixPre-D to that and you have a killer setup for under €4,5k, for both photos and pro video, with pre-edited timecoded video files with proper audio in the right format, ready to edit out of the SSD. This saves A TON of time in post. The 5D3 is a very nice camera, if only a bit overpriced, but Canon has decided to cripple it to protect its new EOS cinema line, which is understandable.

And the winner is... Arrri Alexa. It's the most demanded camera for Film, TV drama and Commercials by a LOOOOONG mile. While other manufacturers were building hype on specs and promises and whatnot, Arri understood the most important features were: a solid camera for the CURRENT neccesities, a simple and fast workflow and first-class customer support. On the other side of the spectrum: -DSLR: the Nikon D800+Ninja2 as the best option, with Broadcast-approved image quality -Low cost Video: FS700 (alone or with additional Samurai) as the lower cost all-terrain camera -Low end Broadcast: a tie between the C300 and the F3. The F3 with slog+Samurai/Pix240 kills the C300 for drama Up from that it it's all alexa. period. RED needs to adress the reputation of faulty cameras, create a worldwide distribution chain and provide 24/7 support by telephone. Until that happens, RED will only be for amateurs. Sony's 65 will compete with the Alexa and surely will get a piece of the Pro pie. BMD camera will be an experiment for now and by v2.0 with an S35 sensor next year it will make all manufacturers nervous. Canon's 1D-C will be a flop unless it reduces its price to $8k and the C500 is only a prototype at this moment, so we won't see it before 2013. The 5D3 will be handicapped by its higher price and by not having a clean HDMI out, thus the D800 will eat this segment for the most advanced users.

Sensor size is something between S16 and FourThirds. That's the only drawback though. Footage looks great, plenty of resolution, stunning DR and very filmic look. The camera looks like a futuristic Hasselblad. Lovely. Price is a surprise for everybody. It also includes a realtime Waveform and Scope !!

[quote author=Andrew Reid - EOSHD link=topic=484.msg3134#msg3134 date=1332943565] It is weird, I have seen very detailed brickwork shot with the D800 and it has come out fine, and I have seen stuff like this which is terrible. The problem seems to be limited to very fine horizontal striped patterns rather than all fine detail. [/quote] D800 videos shot at 720p or at 1080p in DX mode look terrible, are soft and are filled with moire and aliasing. On the other hand, the ones that look great are those shot at 1080p/ FX by people with some experience in video, with the camera properly set for such a task, 180 degree shutter, basic shaperning and contrast etc. The D800 might be better or wore than the 5D3, we'll only know when tested by some of us.

More and more D800 videos are showing up, and looks like it's got noticeable more resolution than the 5D3. Nikon video isn't free of aliasing or moire, but it's very very tiny and appears quite rarily. That's on 1080p. Nikon's 720p video is terrible, quite useless, unfortunately. D800's DX mode video looks very soft as well, in fact just as soft as D4 video. I wonder if the 36MPx are making the difference there in downscaling. Waiting in my D800 test unit from my pro local shop. If D800 delivers, paired with a Pix.220 it might be just the ticket.

[quote author=Simco123 link=topic=478.msg3125#msg3125 date=1332940420] Why jump ship to Nikon? The video footages from the 5DIII by Phil Bloom blew anything I have seen from D4/D800 in terms of detail rendition. It is those who bought the D4/D800 for videos the ones who need to jump ship. [/quote] Maybe you should to look further? A few of the (1080P) D800 videos I've seen are better resolution wise than anything from the 5D3, and those D800 videos were straight out of the camera without any sharpening tricks. I'm waiting for my D800 test unit to arrive. If I find it better, I'l take a pair. Else, I'll get 5D3s. I don't mind brands.

[quote author=thom link=topic=455.msg2933#msg2933 date=1332632362] The HDMI out has issues, it appears. The audio doesn't appear synced to the video properly. Other than that, it's extremely impressive when set and recorded correctly. [url=http://www.bythom.com]www.bythom.com[/url]  [url=http://www.sansmirror.com]www.sansmirror.com[/url] [/quote] This delay is common with hundreds of video devices and TV sets because the video has to be processed/decoded (or even upscaled to the awful 100Hz in some TV sets), while the audio is not, thus the minor audio sync issue. Professional equipment both in audio and video filelds can deal with this very easily, just by appliying a delay of certain miliseconds (in 1 ms increments) to the audio signal. The SoundDevices Pixies can do that, not surprinsignly as they come from a reputed manufacturer of professional audio stuff. BTW the If the D800 presents such delay thru its HDMI out, it should be easy to fix in a future firmware.

[quote author=Andrew Reid - EOSHD link=topic=455.msg2922#msg2922 date=1332614510] Simco is right jindrich that was the old 5D2 vs D800. Pretty bad moire on both of those to my eye. [/quote] Gosh, you are right. After seing dozens and dozens of videos, and scrutinizing them over an over looking for artifacts, I got so puzzled that I misread the canon model in that video. My preference still remains with the D800 though, despite the minor aliasing, due to its superior resolution, less rolling shutter and apparently better DR, not to mention the clean HDMI. Anyway, final judgment can only be stablished after trying both bodys, which I'll do soon hopefully.