Zach

Novo Digital Camera have created a custom housing for GoPro 3 that lets you fit C-Mount lenses and even disable auto exposure using a custom CPU!
 
Pretty cool huh?
 
Apparently it's pretty complex (and thus we can assume expensive to make) so it won't be a product to buy, but they will be hiring them out. 
 
Just goes to show how far you can go with a mod if you have the expertise...

 
More info here: http://www.viewfactor.net/blog/?p=331

turn some screws, lift some metal, clean glass, put it back!

Also, don't be afraid to build your own fixtures, especially for interior location lighting, if you like a natural look.  Even with Kinos on set a lot of great DPs augment practical lights with their own homebrew creations, bat strips, China balls and the like, because these tend to look less contrived than studio lighting.  They're also less stressful on your actors and don't chew up as much space.
 
 
edit: I looked but they don't have it in their online archives, but if you ever see for sale or get the chance to pick up the October 2000 issue of American Cinematographer Magazine there's a great little article on the lighting philosophy of Jean Yves Escoffier and how he applied it to the Labute film Nurse Betty.  It's been a touchstone and reference of mine all these years whenever I think about interior lighting and the legitimacy of homebrew lighting fixtures, even on the set of a major motion picture.  People talk all the time about what they think they could or couldn't pull out of a bag in front of a client and that's just ridiculous.  The end image is all that matters.

When exactly did Bloom say that 8 bit 4:2:2 would, in anyway, compete with 12 bit raw? How is he trying to change that view?
 
I like this site for some things, i like PB's site for some things..... I couldn't give 2 shits about the bickering and egos behind the info. But spreading FUD is no help to anyone.

the value of focus peaking it vastly over rated IMO. Never is it accurate enough to judge focus well enough to be relied on in the same way punching in 5x or 10x can be.

Bruno, thanks for this advice. My main gripe with the RX100 is trying to do 24p with the NTSC version.  Neither 30p nor 60p cleanly converts to 24p (at regular speed, not slow-mo).  It always has that weird, skipped-frame look.  
 
I've used Optical Flow rate conforming in FCP X to some success, but it's never been perfect.
 
I understand you're in a PAL region and are shooting 25p, but if anyone has any advice on getting non-jerky 24p out of this cam I'd appreciate the help.

To make a long story short....
 
The c300 uses a proprietary sensor readout that makes it relatively immune to certain visual artifacts like moire and rolling shutter. 
 
As far as bit depth is concerned, a higher bit depth gives you a lot more leeway in post. Camera's like the c300 compress information so that you get a great image out of camera. But this information is compressed to give you the best image right out of the camera. However, when using 8-bit, you lose sensor information that informs what the scene would look like under a different exposure or white balance(which could be considered extraneous). 
 
For example, if your out of camera image reads shadow detail as 100% black, you will only get greys when you brighten it. At a higher bit depth, those shadows will contain detail that can be elicited through brightening. 
 
Does this make sense?

Yeah, out of all things I feel this desperately need an in-camera file management. This should be their next top priority, nothing is worse then being out in the field and not knowing how much is left on an SSD or not being able the format the card/ delete outtakes. Its fun to think as using this issue as using film, but thats really just a place holder. Other then that, i still really like what this camera's doing.

Ugh Fuck, spare us your baited pissing contest Sean.    :blink:

The cameras already have all they need to record audio: power, storage, processor, even audio recording capabilities, why have all that again in a separate recorder? It's not like we're talking about adding audio to a camera that doesn't have it at all. The main difference in audio quality is down to the quality of the preamps, it doesn't take up more space or more engineering to implement decent audio, it takes a few more expensive components, since the rest is all there already. As far as we know, the audio in this camera could even already be as good as such a device, and the only absurd thing in this post is you picking on something they did well and saying the camera didn't need it just because YOU don't need it, that's not very positive is it?

I really do believe people need to cut them some slack.
 
It took a company with a backing of millions of dollars (Red) years to deliver their first camera and it was very late.
 
These guys have what, $150,000 from Kickstarter? That is peanuts.
 
They are delivering a camera which does 2.4K from a global shutter for $3000!!!
 
This will be a fine back-up for the Blackmagic where rolling shutter would be an issue on the BMCC CMOS sensor.
 
The image quality from the samples so far look great.
 
The form factor is fine, it is is still a picture making box like all the other cameras. I don't see what is wild and weird about it. The handle comes off and you can rig it up like a DSLR or put it on a tripod. I do prefer the Epic's form factor but there were very few complaints about the original Bolex's form factor, and tons of interesting 16mm stuff was shot with just the handle and nothing else.

That's all very relative, it wouldn't be that hard to stick a couple of quality preamps in a camera and then add it to the videofile at 24 bit resolution, it's all you need from those devices, a way to plug your xlr mics, power them and measure audio levels, do you think it's that hard to get it right in a camera (if that's the manufacturer's wish)?
 
When you say "These systems are perfectly fine for film production", I know many audio guys that would argue otherwise, it's like saying that a Canon Rebel is perfectly fine for film production, which it could definitely be. Also you're talking about "film production" when I was talking about "single shooters".
 
This guy would also disagree:
http://youtu.be/KKVeBqhXMvM

Telling for the future of cinema. Why don't those story-wise timeless re-releases gross the big money they used to? It's because very many already own a pretty good copy to watch on a pretty good, pretty big display. There are, say, alternative ways to distribute a film than through cinema or DVD/BD-sales. Historically, the blockbuster-syndrom started with Star Wars IV, among all little stars on the movie canopy this was the Death Star. Now, if we don't re-discover the small, intelligent films, cinema will be dead, in the not so far, far future.

I just bought a Sony DSC-RX100. After a couple years shooting my personal projects on a Canon 7D, I needed something more compact that I could carry with me at all times, and the Sony DSC-RX100 looked like it could be the one. The great reviews, the ability to shoot 1080p at 50fps with a fast Zeiss IS lens, full manual control in video mode, focus peaking and a 16mm sized sensor convinced me to go for it!
 
My footage shot on the 7D improved quite a lot during the time I've been using it, knowing a camera's strong points and especially its limitations is very important to getting good images out of it, so the first thing I did with the Sony DSC-RX100 was to shoot some tests to help me decide which settings I'll be using when shooting video with it.
 
Like most people around here I learn so much from online reviews and discussion forums, and those have been a great help deciding my gear purchases, so I'm sharing what I learned from my tests as a way to return the favor and give something back to the community. There's been some good reviews of the Sony DSC-RX100 online, and some useful info spread around the internet, but I think this post will cover a lot of useful information for whoever's interested in this camera for video, and much of this info will also apply for any other similar camera.
 
I started by turning off all the automatic picture improvement options, as they usually degrade the quality of the image and make it less gradable, then I set the codec to AVCHD at 28mbits and 50p (PS).
 
SHOOTING MODE
For video shooting I'd recommend setting the top wheel to video mode and then selecting video-M for manual video shooting
The RX100 does have a dedicated Movie Recording button, and can shoot video on any Stills mode, but you might get aspect ratio and exposure changes once you hit the Record button in these modes. In video-M mode you'll get what you see on screen.
 
RECORD SETTINGS
 
The Sony RX100 can shoot movies in two different formats, MP4 and AVCHD. All MP4 options are below 1080p resolution though, so I won't get into those. In AVCHD mode however, we get 3 different 1080 options:
 
50i 24M (FX) (50i @ 24Mbps, Blu-Ray AVCHD disc compliant)
50i 17M (FH) (50i @ 17Mbps, DVD AVCHD disc compliant)
50p 28M (PS) (50p @ 28Mbps, Progressive Scan)
 
So it seems like we get 50i at 17Mbps and 24Mbps, and we get 50p at 28Mbps, but not really…
The 50i mode is actually capturing 25p images out of the sensor and encoding them as 50i footage, this means that we do end up with interlaced footage, but since it was captured progressively, de-interlacing it will produce a clean 25p image!
 
So if we're looking for the best possible video out of the RX100, we should use 50i 24M for 25fps video and 50p 28M for 50fps video.
In theory, shooting 50i 24M gives us the best bitrate per frame in this camera, almost twice as much as shooting 50p 28M.
Shooting 50fps however would have neighboring frames changing less than when shooting 25fps, helping the encoder do a better job, but still the per frame bitrate is lower, and here's a comparison that shows is. If you look at the darker areas in the back where the window is, you'll see that the 50i version is slightly cleaner.
 

 
Here's an example of something in motion shot at 50i and 50p, the 50i frame was de-interlaced and as you can see there's no interlacing artifacts at all.
 

 
Considering all of the above, I think it's safe to say that the 50i 24M mode, which is in fact 25p @ 24Mbps, will give you best video quality out of this camera.
  CREATIVE STYLES
Creative Styles is the RX100's designation for Color Profiles.
My first test was to choose the flattest Creative Style the camera had to offer, so I shot some footage of all the different styles.
 

 
After looking at all these different images, I decided to go with the Portrait Creative Style, as it seems to be the flattest of them all.
 
EXPLORING THE PORTRAIT CREATIVE STYLE
Each Creative Style has settings for Contrast, Saturation and Sharpness that can be set from -3 to 3, so I shot some more footage using the Portrait Creative Style in a number of different settings.
 

 
Using the Portrait Creative Style at the minimum settings (Contrast: -3, Saturation: -3, Sharpness: -3) definitely (and obviously) seems to be the flattest style in this camera, but I had to check how well it graded and how it compares to using the default values (Contrast: 0, Saturation: 0, Sharpness: 0).
 

 
On the top left you have a frame shot using the Portrait Creative Style, with all the settings set to 0, on top right you have a frame shot using the Portrait Creative Style in its flattest settings (Contrast: -3, Saturation: -3, Sharpness: -3).
On the bottom right frame I added some sharpness to the flat image, which responded quite well, and on the bottom left frame I added not only sharpness but also increased the Saturation and Contrast in order to match the top left frame (Contrast: 0, Saturation: 0, Sharpness: 0).
The result is an image that matches in color saturation and contrast, but with a much nicer detail and less compression artifacts. It looks sharper and cleaner overall, which made me decide to use this Creative Style and these settings from now on.
 
SHOOTING BLACK & WHITE
The following test is something I've been wanting to do for a while, regardless of the camera. The thinking behind this test was:
 
"If the camera is compressing B&W footage instead of color footage, maybe it can do a much better job at it since it doesn't have all the color information to process, so even using the same bit rate could give us better results."
 
Of course I don't know the details on the cameras' inner workings, but assuming the B&W Creative Style is applied BEFORE the footage is compressed to AVCHD, then this should work. Maybe.
 

 
So I shot some footage using the B&W Creative Style in its flattest settings (Contrast: -3, Saturation: -3, Sharpness: -3), which you can see on top left, and then some more footage using my new favorite Portrait Creative Style, also in its flattest settings (Contrast: -3, Saturation: -3, Sharpness: -3).
 
On the middle left frame, I increased the sharpness and the contrast on the image to make it less flat, and on the middle right frame I did the same, and also desaturated it. As you can see both images are different, since the B&W Creative Style's color conversion is not merely desaturating the image to create a B&W version, it's using a more clever process that also looks better, but anyway, the point here is to test the image compression and figure out which one gives cleaner results, so on the last test frames I increased the exposure by 2 stops to find out how well the images handled it.
On the bottom left frame you can see how much cleaner the image shot with the B&W Creative Style is, compared with the one shot using the Portrait Creative Style, it's actually beautifully clean and overexposing it by 2 stops didn't show any ugly artifacts at all.
 
So my conclusion on this one is, if you're shooting for black and white, and you're sure that's the look you'll want (since it's kind of hard to color B&W footage if you change your mind afterwards), then using the B&W Creative Style will give you far superior results!
 
DYNAMIC RANGE OPTIMIZER
The Dynamic Range Optimizer works when writing to compressed formats, such as JPG, MP4 or AVCHD. It has no effect when shooting RAW.
Its purpose is to capture more detail in the areas that are more prone to get lost when using compressed formats, such as dark shadows. It works in the darker areas of the image, making them brighter and producing a flatter image, which makes it easier on the image compression to achieve better results.
Here's a test scene shot using all the DRO levels available. There's also an Auto Mode, but I suspect it wouldn't give predictable results when shooting manual video.
 

 
The result is quite clear on every mode. Personally I think 5 is too much and might be actually degrading the image more than it helps, but lower settings definitely look not just useable but very useful in achieving a flat and clean image. I'd say using the DRO in its modes 2 and 3 would definitely help achieving a better flat image. I'll probably leave it at 2 all the time and increase it to 3 in situations with more contrast.
 
5DtoRGB
I've used 5DtoRGB on Canon footage since the early beta versions, and I honestly don't understand how come it's not used by everyone. 5DtoRGB features one of the best YCbCr to RGB compression out there, and it's free!!!
(the Pro version with batch capabilities costs $50 though)
 
5DtoRGB does a great job improving aliasing and compression artifacts and transcoding to 10-bit Prores (can also transcode do DPX image sequences and DNxHD files), or at least it did with Canon DSLR footage, so I thought I'd try it with the RX100.
 

 
The top frame is from the original AVCHD file and the bottom frame is from the Prores transcoded file out of 5DtoRGB.
5DtoRGB automatically changed the Decoding Matrix setting to ITU-R BT.709, so I assume that's the one to use with the RX100 (Canon DSLRs like the 550D, 60D or 7D used the ITU-R BT.601 Decoding Matrix, the 5Dmk3 however used the ITU-R BT.709).
Looking at it like this there's not much of a difference, so I went looking in the channels.
 

 
The Red and Green channels looked quite clean in both versions, but looking closely at the Blue channel you can see how 5DtoRGB makes a pretty good job at smoothing out some of the compression blockiness, but mainly smoothing out the aliased lines you get on sharper edges.
Using 5DtoRGB won't do any miracles, but when shooting to 8 bit compressed codecs, every little bit helps, and using it along with a flat Creative Style will definitely help you getting cleaner and better images.
 
SHUTTER ANGLE / SHUTTER SPEED
The Sony DSC-RX100 has the annoying feature of only shooting 50fps (or 60fps on NTSC markets).
On one hand it's great to be able to shoot 50fps at 1080p, but on the other hand, shooting 25fps at the same bit rate would probably produce better results with less compression.
One of the advantages of this could be that you'd always have the extra frames in case you needed the slow motion effect, but unfortunately that's not quite the case, since the ideal shutter speed for 25fps real time playback is different than the ideal shutter speed for 25fps slow motion playback.
If you're planning on shooting for 25fps real time playback, then you should set your shutter to 1/50, but if you intend to shoot for slow motion playback at 25fps, then you should set your shutter speed to 1/100.
 

 
Using a shutter speed of 1/100 for real time 25fps playback will not give you enough motion blur, and the motion playback will not be as smooth as it should. Also, playing back footage shot at 1/50 shutter speed at 25fps slow motion will have too much motion blur, making its motion look rather fuzzy.
 
 
Here's a sample file you can download yourself.
This was shot at AVCHD, 1080 50fps with a shutter speed of 1/50, meant to be used on a 25fps timeline, playing at real time:
https://dl.dropbox.com/u/8569573/rx100review/RX100videoSample1.mov
 
 
That's it for now, I really hope it helps some people out. I have some videos I can share later on if you're interested, and I also might update this review with tests of the different Steady Shot modes once I get to them.
Keep in kind that these are only my findings and personal opinions, it would be great to hear from people with different opinions, or about settings you think would give better results.
 
Enjoy!

I've wanted to since version 1. Its not here on version 3. We want it and there is certainly no harm in asking for it. Its only a discussion because you are making it one. If you dont need the feature there is no need for you to weigh in on it. We all want the feature, so we are going to ask for it. 

Geez, why so offensive about a little feature request. 
 
It is not a bug, it is just a very simple software feature that is not there and should be pretty easy to add.
Just like a smartphone, the standard camera app doesn't have exposure lock most of the times. Many 3rd party apps do.
 
Most GoPro users won't care for exposure lock or don't even know what it is. They just want to press a button and end up with a good looking video. Which is what the GoPro does.
 
But if you want to mix GoPro video with your dslr footage it would be nice to be able to lock the exposure. That's all what's being asked for here.
 
With adding exposure lock GoPro is not going to cannibalize any of their own products, it would just make the product better and they'd probably sell more of them. To me for example...

I am totally with the op. This is absolutely the most glaringly offensive lack of a feature on this camera. 
 
Is there seriously harm in asking for a simple feature to be added? This is the 3rd overhaul of the camera, still no exposure lock

Hi all,

please join us to improve GoPro 3 with our GoPro 3 exposure lock petition. Thank you.
 
Text of the petition:
We, the GoPro3 users, would like to ask you if you could enhance the GoPro camera with exposure lock functionality. GoPro is a wonderful camera, however, inability to lock exposure can cause side effects that can be noticed in the following video: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qFMCWAqY_Io. We would also appreciate full manual control over ISO and exposure, but we all hope that you could add at least the exposure lock function. Thank you very much.

http://www.ipetitions.com/petition/gopro-3-exposure-lock/
 

I turned to the Dark Side.  Darth FilmMan.  I got stupid last week.  Let me rephrase that.  I got dumber than usual.  I was talking to a sales guy about the Canon 1DC.  I said, "sharpen your pencil, and give me a price that will make me buy."  I bought it -  I still paid too much.  Then I ordered Lexar 1000x cards and another battery from other places.  So I get the camera, cards and extra battery.   At first I was questioning my decision.  Then not questioning myself.  Anyway, I won't keep rambling.   I was putting up stuff on Vimeo but the compression for a non-plus member is not as good.  So I put some stuff on YouTube.  Here's a quick shot of my neighbor.  90 mm lens.  4K footage down sampled to 1080p.  Then uploaded to the Tuber.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Lii3vOm3p7w

To be honest, I don't think it will have an noticeable effect on the market.
 
Don't get me wrong, I'm super enthusiastic about the Speed Booster and I can't wait to get a M43 version, but right now it mainly applies to dslr film makers. Yes, it does autofocus, but poorly. The big masses of photographers won't be as enthusiastic as I am. If I were a photographer, I'd just buy a Nikon D600 or 5D Mark II if I'd want cheap fullframe.
 
I don't have any figures (who does?), but I think the NEX/M43-users who mainly focus on filming are quite a tiny minority compared to the overall market.
 
People already know the value of fast lenses. They already are highly sought after and in demand by serious photographers/filmmakers. The f/2.8 lenses are relatively abundant and cheap. They will become more valuable to aps-c/m43 users now, but nothing will really change because they already were interesting on fullframe camera's and their market values are pretty settled down I think.

Need to use lexar 1000x card for 4K.  If not using the correct card then issues.
 
If it was an over heating issue then it was a defective camema. 

My Sekonic 308 hardly gets used now - shot film for 20 years so it was essential
but seeing as you can now see the image you are shooting instantly its not used much now
I now work on the notion of
'if it looks good..it is good'

The point you raised is that Canon have priced you out of making your project... Forcing you to either choose talent in front of the camera, or features in your camera.
 
I put forward the counter argument that Canon have already created a budget indie camera that shot Shane's film and made him a good income and received praise from critics and viewers alike. In fact, they added a better codec, better low light, less aliasing and moire in their 5DIII upgrade.
 
Face it, Canon have provided cameras that any indie film maker could shoot a watchable film on, if they have the script and talent.... prices from $500 to $30,000.
 
I'm sure we'd all prefer more features.. resolution, dr etc.. and we'd all prefer things to be cheaper.... But the art of making an indie project succeed is to find ways around such problems and use your talents and script to drag people into the art.
 
Anyone sat on a script thinking they need to wait to shoot it in 4K, or with 14 stops DR, or must have raw, or must have x lens are just wasting their own time.
 
If you have a good script, buy a D800, a 5DIII, a 6D, a GH3... hell, grab a 2nd hand GH2 or 5DII.... Learn to light your scene and get pristine audio... and go do

Canon are pricey but one thing for sure they can stand a beating
and you can put fast cheap and light primes on a 5d
 
if only they could have put a swivel screen on them.....