GrantEllis

Quick update.

Looks like we have found a member of the Magic Lantern team to oversee the donations. Big thanks to Malcolm for that.

Once that is set up at PayPal, I'll put a donate button on the forums and once the funds reach the required amount our hacker will be getting his test bodies to sacrifice on the alter of NEX hacking :)

[quote name='EOSHD' timestamp='1344776311' post='15393']By the way it isn't so much 24p at 24Mbit which is the problem on the FS100 but 60p at 28Mbit, because bitrate is allocated variably per frame. The more frames the more the available data is thinly spread across them.
[/quote]

That's not correct. With Mpeg4, practically all redundant data over time are reduced. The lower the frame rates, the more radically the content alters from frame to frame, so you'd have less redundant information and need higher bit rates. For 120 fps, you'd need about 30 mbps. Ever did stop motion animation? You only draw the changes, and what changes between two frames of 48 fps is a fraction of what changes between two frames in 24 fps in the first place. In hand-drawn animation, you'd simply draw a few motion blurred objects connecting the key frames, no matter how many phases the frame rate actually demanded.

What about camera movement, when [i]every[/i] pixel has changed position in the next frame? That used to be my argument, but the engineers' answer is: If the position changing is predictable, it is a classic motion path, which doesn't even need particularly high bit rates. If it is chaotic ("stressing the codec"), the encoder tends to simplify the details, which by their nature then cannot be recognized as details by the human eyes.

Noise, though not detail, is not only redundant. We perceive noise subconsciously as a natural phenomenon. Watch the shadows below your desk in the evening. Are they dead?

That's why too low bit rates are a problem - at any frame rate: They iron out the random noise. With 60p you [i]always[/i] see this effect, with or without interframe. That's because you have more than twice the temporal resolution. 24p is a very effective way of temporal compression. As little as possible, as much as needed.

The FS100 has an implementation of AVCHD that is as good as it gets, for better you definitely need to double the bitrate no question.

By the way it isn't so much 24p at 24Mbit which is the problem on the FS100 but 60p at 28Mbit, because bitrate is allocated variably per frame. The more frames the more the available data is thinly spread across them.

[quote name='tabac' timestamp='1344363313' post='15065']
Just signed up here just to say, where do you get the balls?
[/quote]

From a Y chromosome...duh.

What part of my criticism do you disagree with?

1. The handheld was shaky throughout, starting with the very first shot
2. Sloppy focus at 0:15
3. Guys face mostly in shadow, with a bright spot ocasionally hitting his forhead (1:45)
4. Weird tracking shot swaying back and forth (2:40 ish)
5. Guys face is too dark in the last scene

Look, it's not terrible, it's not even bad, but it's not what I'd put out there to show off new tech just weeks from the suposed launch.

Hmmmm the plot thickens. I wasn't [i]that [/i]impressed with this stuff. I mean I know it's natural light with little augmentation so it's never going to look blockbuster, but larger-sensor cameras are able to make even mundane daytime scenes seem otherworldly, I think it may just be the nature of super 35 size and up.

My recent experience with digital medium format confirmed this for me! Looking through the lens is really eerie. Even with one eye it's almost stereoscopic looking. Panning has a beautiful but surreal sense of depth. Then again, since Leica lenses also have this look, perhaps it's more glass choice.

But there is an oddly electronic 'feel' to the image here. The motion itself is filmic (low jello and I-frame compression hand in hand there I reckon), but overall it's kind of... dead. Something tells me it's a combo of heavy sensor crop increasing DOF and reducing the 3D feel, plus the lens choice. It could be Canon L lenses here as the image is pretty warm, and I usually find them kind of sterile.

Incidentally, I don't think this camera should have an EF mount, it should have a removable electronic EF mount with a mirrorless one behind, then people could play with hired, high-end PL glass and the like, to give the camera a fair run against RED and Alexa.

The whole raw/prores/no in-cam NR or sharpness stuff is great, but this clip left me feeling a bit disappointed. Will be nice to see some footage that's really gone through its paces. I mean, in order to make EOS footage look the way I want takes a lot of processing (noise reduction, grades, film grain and more), so I'd love to get hold of some rushes and REALLY go to town on them, then judge the cam again. I suppose on balance, if we'd only ever seen straight rushes from the 5D MKii none of this revolution would ever have started ;)

But still, I've yet to feel excited by a real image from this camera, it's only the spec sheets that have got me going, and that doesn't feel right. Perhaps it'll look nicer with a good super fast wide on the front... I'm still watching closely.

Perhaps it's simpler than the above, and I just don't like the work of the film maker. After all, I've seen phenomenal work and average work and bad work come out of 5Ds.

[media]http://vimeo.com/47013561[/media]

New Blackmagic Cinema Camera footage is in the wild, and this one is downloadable in glorious high bitrate 1080p.

Although it isn't the original DNG or ProRes rushes it is the closest we've come to a representative video yet.

http://www.eoshd.com/content/8703/most-significant-clue-so-far-about-blackmagic-cinema-camera-performance

Some of my favourite shots I have shot at F5.6 on an anamorphic. Knocking back a distracting background is important, but it doesn't need to be creamed out entirely, that is just boring. In my opinion a backdrop should be like a painting, where you can see the brush strokes and texture but it doesn't distract from the main subject. Excessive shallow DOF has been used and abused too often for my liking!

Yeah i really don't see the issue. I mean even in its compressed state, i'm still seeing things on the other side of the windows. She doesn't look like she's playing pool on a dying star like we usually see with dslr's. I think there's enough d.o.f. to isolate whatever you need to in frame. A lot of that "cinematic" look, is gonna be on you boys... None of us have gotten our hands on this thing with a dolly, or an anamorphic, or a slider yet.

I do recognise that chair moire to human vision issue, seen it many times with my own eyes. I think the furniture needed moving around before he shot it :) Natural moire or camera moire? I suspect natural as there are a lot of other fine details, fabric, hair, pool cloth for example and zero moire or false detail there.

The footage - when I play in Chrome to get around a strange compression issue with Vimeo - looks absolutely fantastic on my Epson theatre projector and Dell U2711 2.5K screen. And it isn't even the full 2.5K raw but ProRes. Camera is shaping up great.

In my opinion - the REAL advantage of a full frame sensor = more dynamic range. Not unmanageable shallow focus.

This thing has heaps of dynamic range so the sensor size doesn't concern me in the least.

Hi everyone, this is my first post but I just had to point out something: I used to have a chair like that. It's not actually moire like what happens with a lot of other DSLR footage that's caused by aliasing. This is actually caused naturally by the fact that you are looking through two layers of mesh. It's imposable for the front mesh the line up exactly with the back mesh so you see a moire pattern. It's a completely naturally occurring optical effect that you would see with your naked eye. Another way you can tell this is the case is that the pattern doesn't change or move every frame like normal moire caused by aliasing or the simple fact there is no moire anywhere else.

Thanks!

The Vimeo compression on this video was worse than normal, it is maybe an issue in the new Safari in Mountain Lion. Vimeo could possibly be giving me iPhone browser bitrates by accident on my desktop.

[url="http://www.studiodaily.com/2012/07/sony-introduces-handheld-pmw-200-422-xdcam/"]http://www.studiodaily.com/2012/07/sony-introduces-handheld-pmw-200-422-xdcam/[/url]
[b] Sony Introduces Handheld PMW-200 4:2:2 XDCAM[/b]

Successor to PMW-EX1R Offers 50 Mbps MXF Recording, Genlock, Timecode
By [url="http://www.studiodaily.com/author/bfrazer/"]Bryant Frazer[/url] / [url="http://www.studiodaily.com/2012/07/sony-introduces-handheld-pmw-200-422-xdcam/"]Jul 25, 2012[/url]

Sony has improved on the PMW-EX1R XDCAM with the new PMW-200, which offers MPEG HD422 recording to SxS cards at 50 Mbps. Sony is positioning it in part as an ideal B-camera counterpart to the $25,000 PMW-500. The PMW-200 is expected to ship in September for a list price of $7790.
The camera captures imagery via three 1/2-inch Exmor CMOS chips. The increased quality of 4:2:2 recording is a nice upgrade, but the workflow advantage is the PMW-200's support for the MXF container and the UDF file system. UDF is the basis for recording to the Blu-ray optical-disc recording media favored by reality-TV producers (due to the high shooting ratios and low cost of media), and it's also utilized by the PMW-500.
That means the PMW-200 allows facilities to use the same UDF/MXF recording mode across both memory cards and optical media, using established XDCAM workflow. (However, the PMW-100 does not generate a separate proxy when shooting in MXF mode.) The PMW-200 also supports 35 Mbps and 25 Mbps MP4 and DVCAM recording tp SxS in the FAT format, making it fully backward compatible with existing XDCAM EX workflows.
The PMW-200 is far from a replacement for the PMW-500, which is a shoulder-mount camera boasting 2/3-inch CCDs. Still, Sony officials say it's a nice improvement over the EX1R, boosting the signal-to-noise ratio from 54 to 56 dB and sensitivity from F10 at 2000 lux to F11. Compare that to [url="http://www.pro.sony.eu/biz/lang/en/eu/product/xdcamcamcorders/pmw-500/technicalspecs"]published figures[/url] of 59 dB and F11 (60i) and F12 (50i) for the PMW-500.
"They're pretty well matched," Sony Electronics Senior Product Manager Christopher Tsai tells StudioDaily. "The EX1R has always been noted for really good sensitivity with low noise, and we already have a lot of people who are using the EX1R like a B camera with the PMW-500 — or even the PDW-F800."
Another upgrade from the EX1R is the ability to record up to four channels of 24-bit LPCM audio in the MXF container, the same as the PMW-500. The viewfinder is the same, but the 3.5-inch LCD panel has been upres'd from 640×480 to 852×480, and a new Wi-Fi option for remote operation via mobile app should be available via a firmware upgrade that''s scheduled to go online in December.
The 14x zoom fixed Fujinon lens has been ported over unchanged from the EX1R, meaning existing lens accessories like the VCL-EX0877 .8x wide converter will work with the new camera. The EX1R's slow-and-quick speed and slow-shutter options are also intact, along with the 15-second cache recording feature, and the battery system and accessories are the same.
In the interest of full disclosure, we asked Tsai which significant features from the EXR1 are [i]missing[/i]. He said there are three.[list]
[*]The Shot Transition push-button feature for moving automatically between two sets of presets (focus, zoom, etc) has been discarded
[*]Component video out is gone. Instead, the camera has a BNC terminal for composite video out that doubles as a genlock in. Another BNC enables timecode in and out. (The EXR1 had neither genlock in nor timecode in/out.) HDMI and SDI output are still there, of course. "We took off one output connector and gave you two additional," Tsai says.
[*]The PMW did not inherit the rotating handgrip from the EXR1.
[/list]
No doubt one or more of these will be dealbreakers for some users. For more details, take a look at the [url="http://www.studiodaily.com/2012/07/sony-brings-hd422-workflow-to-its-xdcam-handheld-camcorder-line/"]official press release[/url] or click on over to the [url="http://pro.sony.com/bbsc/ssr/micro-xdcam/"]official XDCAM website[/url].

[quote name='Ivor Koons' timestamp='1343385635' post='14608']
It looks very clean, but I am missing something that the name Cinema Camera promises - a cinematic feel. The DOF is too big, even the GH1 and GH2 deliver a better image in terms of a 3D impression.
The colors look a bit washed-out, too.
The cheap-looking, commercial-like setting might add to that. I can't get rid of the impression that the scenes have been worked on to look as filmic as can be, but this approach somehow isn't successful.
I'm looking forward to seeing some less plasticky stuff. From what I've seen till now, the GH series, if handled well, seems to win over the BCC. But that is hopefully going to change.
[/quote]


but it doesn´t at all look as desperately "i want to be cinema" than this gh2 clip from musgo last week. bmc actually looks very good and could be the end of hdslr filmmaking. hopefully.

shallow depth of field is only a byproduct of the s35 frame. the extensive use of it came about with video trying to look like film since it couldn´t reproduce the color or dr. before dops and directors were rather trying to get more light on their scene for deeper focus. documentary filmmakers always preferred 16mm. they could shoot pretty wide open but still have more in focus than a pair of ears.

the shallow dof "cinema" look was invented to sell inferior video products and make vimeo clips look nice. and beauty shooters like philipp bloom love it, makes their job so much easier making everything look like a pack shot from a tv ad.

i so hope the bmc is good! looks very promising. soft, nice dr, ok colors. only wideangles will be a real problem. the equivalent of an 18mm on s35 is what? 8mm?

i´d love to use my bolex mount 12.5-100 f2 kern vario-switar on this.
[b] [/b]

[quote name='Ivor Koons' timestamp='1343385635' post='14608']
It looks very clean, but I am missing something that the name Cinema Camera promises - a cinematic feel. The DOF is too big, even the GH1 and GH2 deliver a better image in terms of a 3D impression.
The colors look a bit washed-out, too.
The cheap-looking, commercial-like setting might add to that. I can't get rid of the impression that the scenes have been worked on to look as filmic as can be, but this approach somehow isn't successful.
I'm looking forward to seeing some less plasticky stuff. From what I've seen till now, the GH series, if handled well, seems to win over the BCC. But that is hopefully going to change.
[/quote]

depth of focus is more often than not determined by the lens aperture. Maybe the camera operator decided a deeper depth of focus was what was in order. Too much hyper shallow dof used by film maker wannabes at the moment. lets move away from that. Lets be sophisticated. The constant bashing of the sensor size is funny. very few seem to consider how 'low budget anamorphic friendly' a smaller sensor is? Anamorphic is true filmic. And this camera is likely to be a king at the job.

on a side note.. The model is rather lovely isn't she. As does the detail. re. moire/aliasing.. I was too busy looking at the subject matter to realize any aliasing. Most viewers of your work won't care about aliasing either.