Danyyyel

I don't want to be controversial but I think this video is the reason I am not a big fan of shooting human faces in 4k, if I was you I would either blur the faces in post or next time use softening filters. Seing every pores or more importantly every pimple is not very flattering. For the grading in certain case I would say it goes a bit too much for my taste (again more on the human being) but it is an artistic choice and I don't know if it is not the extreme sharpness that it is making me think it it is a bit too much. That is just my humble ideas it does not mean that I am right.

This video is the perfect example of colour science, when the author posted it he said A7s and D5200 and most where saying how nice it looked, how did he grade the A7s like that. In fact it is only the first shot of the girl in the mirror (that I did not like, too green for my taste) that was from the A7s, everything else was from the Nikon D5200. It does not mean that you can't grade a look to the image, but it is always better to start from a good natural colours. I just saw the video below that I find fabulous out of the D5300

One thing that many people don't put enough emphasis is colour or what most of us call colour science now. Look at all the Sony endless thread (mainly A7s because of its popularity) here and on other website because the Sony colours are not that good ( On my part it is just horrible). Look at all the talk about getting not good but descent colours out of it. It is like going to a science class with all type of settings and recommendation etc etc. What all these people don't tell you is that grading takes time, a lot of time when you have to correct most shot to at least get a decent image. I have experiment this bitter pill lately as I have had my cousin shooting video to make some highlight reel for beach wedding as I had some Tiffen ND that brought a green cast to the image. I got to grade it quite well getting rid of the cast but it soon turn out to be a real pain having grade nearly all the shots except the ones that did not have the ND. Believe me the first thing I have done is buy some Hoya proNd filters because it was so annoying to do. Colour is one of the least talk about characteristic but believe me having nice skin tone is much more important than 1 stop more DR or 4k.

Form what I  have learned since the Expeed 4 processing engine Nikon use programmable ARM processor, which mean that they can program much more functionality or features. That is why I think they are implementing this program as the features are much less set in stone at hardware level. For example I think the video pipeline is the same as the Jpeg/Tiff one where the raw data coming from the sensor is debayer and then compressed at different setting in term of bitrate colour profile and depth etc. With those programmable processor I think it would be just a question of putting 10 or 12 in place of 8 in a line of code. Now perhaps I am completely wrong but I think it is a possibility.

http://petapixel.com/2015/01/08/leaked-nikon-press-release-reveals-new-program-advanced-dslr-firmware-updates/

Nikon is puting in place an advance firmware update program called I Am Advancing. For those who did not follow Nikon has been producing very good video dslr since the D5200. The latest model like the D810 and D750 produce some of the best all round image with very good 1080p resolution, low light, DR, rolling shutter no apparent moire/aliasing and for me the best colours out of camera. But unfortunately they did lack some things like peaking, 4k (for some important) and quirks like not being able to change aperture while filming (while they have address the latter in the D750, D810 and rumoured D7200).

Now with the new firmware program I would not mind even paying for some advance filmakers firware package that would get things like 10 bit, higher internal bitrate, waveform monitor and why not Raw like Magic lantern. I think things like peaking is a big omission and should be free at least until they have some super AF in liveview and should be provided free. Taking the example of Magic lantern I am sure that the hardware is capable of additional functionality like peaking additional exposure monitoring. A 60 mbit is already possible with hack on cameras like the D800, so a 10 bit 60/100 mbit, 10 bit and log mode should be more than feasible at 1080p. Raw output using hdmi output might be a bit of a dream but the the one I listed before should be easily implemented.

Nikon is a bit strange in terms of what you get of the same sensor like for example of the D7100/D5200. They are supposed to share the same sensor (with the banding issue) but in terms of video sharpness they are quite different. The D5200 is considered a little bit soft (not canon soft) while as you can see of my test here http://www.dvxuser.com/V6/showthread.php?310503-Nikon-D7100-vs-Panasonic-gh2-sharpness  the D7100 is nearly Gh2 level in this blind test where it was so close that not a lot got it right or wanted to commit. I don't know if it is intentional by Nikon but we will have to test each camera out to be sure.

The touch screen is interesting overall as it is a welcome addition for a less pro body with less physical button. For video Nikon specified that they had enhance the liveview performance, perhaps the touch screen might be and improvement for focusing for video. As for the D7200 it might be a very compelling video slr as rumour site are saying that it will be possible to change aperture in video mode. If it is as sharp, moire/alias free and banding free it might become a very compelling video slr for about $ 1000... except for peaking!!!!!!!!!!

That comes to the latest subject about Nikon Firmware program. Perhaps we should petition them so that they implement features like peaking and even some more highend features like 10 bit, higher internal bitrate, waveform monitoring or even raw  etc even for paid update.

Whoaw, I don't know which light they use but it is A7s green bias in full swing. If I was the guy filming it with the supposed better gradability of the prores I would have tried to get a better grade out of it.

Can someone tell me how to post photos in 1080p on this forum. Everytime I try it tells me than the photo should not be higher than something like 70 kb which is too low and I have seen others posting images at 1080p and much more KB.

If you take history of SD to HD after like 15 years most people of the world are still watching SD and 720p TV. Online system like youtube at 1080p is in truth more like 720p with the very low  bitrate etc. 4k tv will be with all of us within the next 3/5 years because TV manufacturers have only this to sell there TV because 1080p is already good enough for 99% of human beings. It will go the same way as 3D. As soon as oled TV prices comes closer to mass market prices, you will see how they will all jump at how deep the shadows are and very high contrast ratio (Since the denial of plasma TV, at least this will be a big advancement in image quality compared to the move between 1080p and 4k). They are just desperate to keep selling because we are so close to the limit of human perception that people won't just care as they won't be able to discern any difference and won't feel any need to upgrade.

But for distribution, people will still be watching 720p/1080i broadcast for a long long time. As for online with the actual infrastructure it will take a long long time to get the bandwidth and if they do it, it will be like youtube with very low bitrate content that won't be real 4k at all. It will just be for marketing sake.

Now if you have the equipment to do it in 4k and that it does not demand too much more effort and man hour to do, just do it. But one thing I have learn with experience is that you have to be very careful about long project. Because everything accumulates, 1 minutes here, 5 minutes there and you find yourself working twice the number of hours you have thought and quoted at the start. Another thing to consider is that very good HD scales very well to Uhd. You can do some test just film something in 4k and with a very good HD camera and then project them on one of these 4k tv and look at normal viewing distance if it makes a difference. You can even do some blind test with some of your friends who bought 4k tVs.

One thing I would ask you, if it is possible to make at least one example where you put the D750 a little closer to the scene so as to have same field of view than the crop D810. It is very difficult to match sharpness when the two subject are different size.  Thanks again for the test.

I agree there are some great advantages to 4k but my response is based on how many of its champions here seem to have little concern about flesh tone and color accuracy. There's more talk about specs than skin tone. I see "tests" here all the time without charts or faces. I've followed Hurlbut's camera tests and he does them right. He's essentially trying to keep everything constant except the variable he's testing. I find it great he lets the public see them free of charge. Most of my work these days is in episodic and re-creation TV, some movies. The biggest deciding factors from production heads and directors always boils down to faces, work flow, ease of use and cost. Resolution is quite far down the list. There's a reason why F5/55's are not a big hit. If it's colors were anything close to Arri or Canon it would dominate. I'm hoping the Fs7 does something special.

Exactly, colour and how it relates to skin tone is the most important if you are a film maker because your main subject will be human beings and the audience. The audience will also be much more sensible to colour and contrast of the scene (DR) than resolution beyond 1080p. Everything has a threshold and we have achieved it with proper 2k (not Canon dslr false 1080p). How many people did you see complain about resolution on the big screen after a film shot on the Alexa or even C300.  Shane does have a bias toward Canon, but if you follow his reasoning and test it is much more important for the true film maker than some resolution chart and spec sheet. It is not by luck that he is what he is shooting film on the biggest stage and many would benefit from learning from him what is really important.

Also what I am about to post from the NX1 will blow the C100 Mark II away for image quality. You will see :)

So will it be at 6400+ ISO with contrasty scene and with lots of motion? Because if it is at less than 1000 ISO shot in low contrast scene like golden hour and static scene then I am sure that most camera can do it.

If you already have a Nikon glass and is used with the workflow, why don't you use the D750 with the Ninja. Don't think that because the D600 is not good in low light that it is the same with other Nikon camera. Since the launch of the D5200 two years ago Nikon has been using pixel binning, that is sampling much more pixel from the sensor and down scaling them. Since then no more moire/aliasing and very very good lowlight. The D5200/d5300 where about equal to the 5dmark3 and now the latest D750 beat it. In widely available camera it is only beaten by the C100/C300 and the A7s. Note that the A7s and most Sony camera exibit some strange blowout/colour shift on strong blue light like led stage light, I don't know if it is of any concern to you, but I think it is good to know.

You have some example of D750 high Iso here '?do=embed' frameborder='0' data-embedContent>>

or http://www.cameralabs.com/reviews/Nikon_D750/

The colours are nothing unique, you can get the same look on other cameras, in particular the NX1 in 4K is very Canon-like. The A7S just needs the right grading when it comes to S-LOG, as would the C100 in LOG, though clipping of bright blues can be an issue. The GH4 is giving us 10bit out of HDMI. Something to consider for VFX heavy shoots. The best colour of all though, comes not from the C100 II but from raw. Blackmagic, Digital Bolex, Magic Lantern and F5 / FS700 to Shogun.

 

Low light performance is eclipsed by the A7S.

 

Super 35mm - indeed, but no PL option on the C100 II so you are pretty much stuck with shooting through the centre of full frame lenses. EFS lenses are a bit crappy compared to PL cinema stuff aren't they!

 

The ergonomics are overrated. It is nice handheld with the articulated screen & IS on the lens. But then, so are other options.

 

It's a solid option. A work-a-day kinda tool. I dislike the lack of innovation really and there's nothing 'special' or unique about the image it produces. Trust me there isn't.

The problem with your comparison is that you are comparing the C100 against 4 other camera. Compared to all these cameras that have one or more down side the C100 mark 2 is good to very good in every domain. factor in that it has features like internal ND and MIC/xlr imput that would need addons like external sound recorders and ND screw on or Variable (less quality) or even matte box.

I am a Nikon shooter so I have no bias toward Canon cameras. But this is a solid product with the added 60p which was the main problem in the mark1. There are non in the cameras you listed that have as good Low light, resolution, DR, rolling shutter, colour science in one body. As for full frames lens being a waste on Apsc camera it is the exact contrary as it uses the center which is the best part of the lens.

This camera will be huge success and I am sure that it will be a mainstay for many years and will have a huge following in the used market. I can see it selling tons to people in the documentary, Tv, wedding, corporate market. As is already seen the C line has become one of the most used camera for the indie filmmakers in festivals and has been used in many awarded feature films.

As for the C7 I sincerely hope that Sony has made some progress into their colour science, because all spec in the world won't matter if skin tones look more like corps dead low CRI fluorescent colours (If I can describe it in words I see it used in horror movie). Working with Nikon, I just can't understand how a company like Sony cannot at least produce some good even if not great skin tone. I mean its a given for me, when I see all those threat where people discussing continually to get just decent result, I just can't understand. For me it is just saturation/contrast adjustment and voila great skin tone.

Thanks I downloaded it. I don't know if it is the lighting, but they seem to be better than I thought they would. At first I thought that it was the crushed black, but using Gom player and lifting the lows the noise is still very nice. The D750 is cleaner and in this lighting even the 12800 looks very nice and 25600 usable. The D810 6400 iso still looks good with lots of resolution and very nice filmic noise and 12800 would be usable. The D800 is clearly a step below those two in terms of noise and resolution.

From what I have seen before they all look better by 1 stop from what I thought. In other footage the D750 seemed to have a sharp degradation of the quality between Iso 10 000 and 12 800, did you see the same.

I can also understand why the D810 was chosen for that big studio Australian Movie. It has a lot of resolution and it retains a lot of detail even at high ISO. You can easily shoot at 3200 ISO with a ton of detail. This is enough for any movie.

I have always been very critical of the Canon Dslr video, but the C line is very solid in terms of image quality. People can say what they want but for $ 5500 this is a very very solid camera and you have just to look at the success of its predecessors to know that this will be another hit. The C300 was a bit overprice and the C100 had no slowmotion capability at all. Now the C100 mark 2 rectifies all that. My only wish would be 10 bit even if the 8 bit codec on the c line is considered to be very solid.

In six month this camera will be selling for $ 5000, only 1500 more than the 5d3 which was considered industry standard (in these price range) only 2 years ago and you get so much more for the money. The only dslr I would consider close to it would be a D750 with a good EVF and an external sound recorder like the Tascam DR-70.

"Better resolution" froess. Can only laugh at that. You must be completely blind to say the 1080p on the C100 Mark II has better resolution than the NX1 internal 4K.

But is the 4k usable!!! I have seen from Cinema5d site and Samuel Hurtado on Dvxuser giving the A7s between 28 and 30 ms for rolling shutter in full frame mode. To put that in perspective the best cameras are in the 12/18 ms and ................. the Nikon D90 about 33ms. So already the A7s is very near to the D90 uhhhh and I have seen test that the Samsung is worst than the A7s. So has jello cam D90 considered good to shoot in 2015 now because it is 4k.

Another thing to consider is DR and low light. Cinema5d has measured the Samsung at about 10 stop which is very low to todays standard. Well some of there readings of cameras are a little bit odd in terms of DR, but from nearly all the footage I have seen the DR seems very low, blown out highlight and crushed shadows in winter UK is quite conclusive about the Cinema5d readings.

As the C line is very very sharp with its downscaled 4k sensor, I think the super low light and much better DR makes it a much better image and camera overall.

Thanks for the test. Even if the test is quite conclusive between those 3 cameras, I think putting it on vimeo would be better because youtube is so bad because of the heavy compression.

Another thing I would dye for would be some out of camera video sample file between the d810 and the D750 at base Iso. I have seen insanely sharp images out of the D810, that is why I would like to see if the d750 matches it. It would be good also to match the field of view just to be sure about sharpness because the d810 crops a little bit so image looks a little bigger and thus sharper. Again thanks for the test.

maxotics, here's a an early test with 5D3 RAW shooting very high contrast in bright sunlight (inside shooting outside to the street):

 

At the time of the test I didn't have all the tools to preserve skintones at the same time as taming the background (via masking, etc.)). Even so, as a beginning user of RAW we liked how filmic it turned out. For the interior, natural lighting was used and no makeup was applied to the manager. Skintones for both turned out well for the conditions. For the inside to outside shot, the A7S would likely do better (more DR). I'm curious how much as 14-bit RAW with ACR has a lot of gradations for shadow/highlight manipulation (16384 vs 256): as long as highlights and shadows aren't clipped, it would be able to match or exceed what is possible with the A7S.

 

I purchased a Sony FS700 right after the SpeedBooster came out and have been grading Sony footage for a while now.  Whereas I can match cameras and color fairly well in tests with the 5D3, skintones were a whole different matter. With careful exposure and WB, the FS700 can do decent color, however it's fragile for skintones: typically magenta/green 'instability'. In some lighting conditions, the FS700 is quite a challenge for skintones (in the shade at sunset is one example).

 

Here's an example with 5D3 RAW at sunset/golden hour, then the rest is FS700 (interior).

While the FS700 skintones aren't bad, the 5D3 RAW skintones are much better (golden hour light also helped).

 

Reviewing this old footage while studying movies shot on film reminds me how much more filmic 5D3 footage looks compared to newer cameras (including the Canon Cx00 series). It makes sense why the 5D was used on so many feature films.

 

When using the A7S or GH4, having the 5D3 around to take shots for color reference is also helpful. Models and clients always love how the 5D3 makes them look: it's helpful to understand how to make other cameras look similar.

At least some sense on this resolution and spec upset forum. I have been saying more or less the same thing for the last few weeks. This green/magenta bias on skin tone is really bad. If I would rank camera I would put Nikon higher than Canon and add the blackmagic cinema camera up there in the list of very good looking skin tone/colour science. When I say Nikon higher, I mean it is very close with a more golden/orange look to the Nikon but still the Canon is very very nice and would be easy to grade them very close.

Now what I have seen of the Sony is perhaps the worst about skin tone. Even with the kholi settings on dvxuser his first example with the girl has still a lot of the green magenta colour. What is strange is what I would call solarisation effect like on her cheek where you have the magenta that makes a brutal change as if sunburn. If it was not the a7s I would say bad makeup but I have seen the same thing in the little girl video shot in slog. People are saying this is because the person did not shoot XYZ setting but until now I did not see one nice video with some natural skin tone and not graded like orange and teal.

What is funny is that people are dismissing the C100 mark2 on another threat, because it does not have XYZ spec, but that is the same camera that shot film like Adele blue is the warmest colour that won the Cannes film festival and that looks very very good with a naturalistic colours. When people will understand that colour is by far more important, more so when shooting people, than 4k for example, it will be a big advancement for shooters here. We human beings are much more prone to colour than for example resolution. How many time when you are discussing about an image be it video or photo with somebody will he be saying how crisp it was... or will you hear most of the time how the colours were beautiful.

A last thing about grading. I just made the experience lately shooting with some tiffen ND. Guest what with the green bias it becoming really tedious to correct all those shot. Even if I was able to get the green cast out in post the hassle is too much. I am going to buy some 82 mm Hoya pro ND filters. The cost in this case will far outweigh the time spend correcting every shot in the sun.

As a beginner I would recommend either the Black magic cinema camera with mosaic filter (I cannot stand moire /liasing) and a speed booster if you want at least the Cine 35mm field of view, or the Nikon D810 (eventually with a ninja recorder that will give you higher bitrate if you need the best quality out of it). They are good solid choice and perhaps the D750 which will give you additional very very good high ISO even if I am not sure if it is as sharp as the D810 which is very very sharp.

The reason I recommend these cameras is because one of the most important factor in image quality that unfortunately be cannot be counted is colour. Colour is perhaps the most important thing in image quality. With these camera you already have very good colour science (The canon also are quite good but still low rez etc...) from which you can easily adjust to your taste. That good starting point will give you a good starting point from which you can learn and concentrate on all the other aspect of filmaking like framing, composition, lighting and the knowledge of light etc etc.

The other advantage of the Nikon cameras, is the Nikon lense mount, which mean that every Nikon lens you are going to buy, you will be able to use on nearly every other cameras (except medium format and some rare cameras). Lens are more important than cameras. Camera body come and go but lens is a long term investment that can span for decades. 

There is no "other camera" to the A7S for low light photography/video ;)

Yes it is true but to what extend do people need to shoot that low ISO. To get clean ISO 3200/6400 was considered extraordinary what two years ago like when the Canon 5dmark 3 came out. So what did happen during those last two years, have all places in the world decided to decrease lighting everywhere in town's houses etc... Is shooting in moonlight the new norm now. In photos, if you normalise resolution cameras like the D750 are much closer to the A7s up until 12800/25600, I can't even imagine shooting at that level.

Is it me or the DR at least in video (did not see any photo test) look quite low. I see crush shadows and blown higlight in every video I have seen. I mean most have been shot in northern hemisphere winter with low contrast lighting and yet everything is very contrasty.

That's a weird attitude because A) it's not gonna be fixed and b ) the camera is already bought by people. So do you want more people to know about these issues or just sweep them under a rug and say : "It's not an issue for me!"? Yeah, it's not an issue for you. We got it. That's not helping.

Exactly, why do customers have to defend some brand. The problem exist and can be repeated in many Sony camera and does not seem to affect other cameras. Why don't all the bloggers who have been singing A7s praise do at least some test to verify it and at least warn people who do these type of work with blue led if their test are conclusive. Unfortunately it seems that nowadays singing prays rather than thorough research is the norm. The first time I see this problem mentionned it was not necessarily on blue led but very bright highlight like car lights etc (But I am not 100% sure).

I mean I never saw people complaining about this in other cameras even if they shoot high ISO. That is why people consider it a problem, if every camera did the same it would have been considered normal.

Some of the conclusions regarding 4k:

 

• It's here to stay. It's not the norm already, and it won't be for a few years, but there's no point in denying the fact that the world moves towards it.

• Experienced DoPs just don't care. They say it unisono, and they explain why. Because 4k is not about quality.

• There are aspects that dramatically influence quality, and those are DR and color space on the technical side and lighting on the side of craftmanship.

• To the question whether we need it, they more or less say 'no'. Clients who right now demand 4k for distribution are happy with upscaled 2k.

 

Look at their faces. They are all old. People who grew up with camcorders and VDSRLs don't have the background to understand what they are talking about. Who never saw analog and digital material in direct and regular comparison probably assumes rec709 is a law of nature and that digital is superior in every respect. This majority of amateurs and semi-pros first look at the resolution specs but buy and are content with the same old compromises in other aspects. Things that may show very unfavorably, i.e. on a big screen. Like the widely believed misconception that resolution means sharpness and that it is sharpness that can't be exaggerated. That if you can't see a quarter color resolution on your monitor, it will hold up as well on a giant screen (everybody can check by changing the viewing distance) - especially if you show off your high-resolution image!. That a poorly composed image during recording will improve considerably when zoomed in in post. Asf.

 

I completely second their estimation about the future of television (and cinema, for that matter). Netflix, Sky and the like are the future.

Exactly what I think. In 2/3 years every camera will be shooting 4k and we will have do deal with it as hype marketing will make everyone believe that it is better. I am talking from cell phone to digital cinema camera, the video/tv manufacturers have to drive sale as they are running out of ideas. The sad thing is that for example Plasma has died because of the hype of led TV, while until oled comes plasma is so much better.

Somehow, There will come a time of reason in the enthusiast and Pro level. The same that is happening in the photo camera world. The D800 was the step beyond, what I meant is that people just saw that they did not need that kind of resolution in 99% of time. In fact it was beginning to get cumbersome because of file size and processing. As a very satisfied owner of the D800 it does have super DR, colour etc etc but my next purchase will be a D750 because it will better cover 90% of my need. The same will happen here when people will realise that the difference between 4k and 2k is like 1% increment in quality, because we are reaching the limit of human perception.

People can put all types of numbers and formula on the ground, but in the end until robots replace us, just go to a movie theater and watch a film shot with the Alexa and tell me if you saw pixel. I have seen people comment who went to see James bond in 4k claiming that it was better than film in 2k LOL as it was shot with the Alexa.