AnotherDave

How much better is the final resolution of 5k 200mbps vs 4k 400mpbs?

I wouldn't imagine that there would be a huge difference.  Plus isn't it 8bit?  Or is it 10bit?

Who said anyone was looking for a winner?  But, if you're comparing two things... you can't skew it by not equally matching them.

 

I, for one, want the C300 to be the overall winner of every comparison - mainly because of the demand for the previous model.  I want to own one, because at the price point it eliminates some of the competition and I won't have people asking me to 'throw it in for free' like they surely will do with a a7sII.  Spec-wise, though, I don't think the camera has as long of a life span as the previous c300 did. 

Hang on a second.

I just realized you're comparing them using a Canon 24-70 f2.8 (presumably the mk2) on the C300mk2 to a Sony FE 24-240 f/3.5-6.3???  That doesn't seem like a fair competition at all.

The auto-focus and the colors would be greatly effected by the differences in the glass for sure. 

Given the price difference, it's a bit funny anyone would be comparing the two.  What's more, I'm shocked by how close they are to one another.

Do you actually think the average viewer would know the difference? And, I doubt the c300mk2 would win at ISO 20,000.

No No.  But the Sony 35mm 2.8 is a hell of a tiny little lightweight lens.  

Also, I've tried to reproduce the sun spot issue in PAL mode on my camera, and I can't get it to do it.  This might be an issue with the models that were sold in Europe.

 

Why does the consensus seem to be that it is harder to grade S-LOG?  Because it's 8-bit, 4:2:0?  Are people confusing color grading with color correcting?

It isn't raw.  You have to set the white balance correctly for every lighting change.  That is as easy as holding up a grey card or using an expo disk and shooting a custom white balance. Done.

I find it is much more difficult to do a final color correction on Red footage because no body ever shoots a grey card.  I might have a bit more room to tweak colors, but I HAVE to do a job that someone COULD have done in the field.

I haven't noticed any banding.

I've had the a7sII since launch (bought it from BH), and I'm not getting the sunspot issue you're getting.  I've tried pretty hard to re-create it... and nothing.  Just white, bright, light...

I'm also not having an issue with heat, either.  I've used it on 4 pretty long (12-15hr) shoot days, and never have I had it overheat.  *I should note, I wasn't recording continuously.  Each take was between 20 seconds - 2 minutes max.  But the camera was running mostly all day, recording 4k, powered through v-mount, running video to a SmallHD 502 and a Paralinx Triton and I never had any heat issues. 

I do agree that the Gamma Assist LUT should be adjustable.  It mainly hangs in the dead center for me.  I never had an issue under-exposing, but I was mainly checking exposure through the 502 and using a quick, LUT I built in Resolve.

As far as adapters go, I recently learned to love E-mount lenses after picking up a used 35mm Sonnar, and I'm a bit blown away by the auto-focusing and face tracking modes.  I've set Focus Hold to C1 and I like it enough to double down and sell my 24-105 Art for a Sony 24-70 Vario-Tessar.  It isn't as sharp, but offers better contrast and is also nearly 1 1/2 lbs lighter.

I'm going to test it out and see.  I thought the upscaled 4K APS-C crop from the mk1 looked fine on my Shogun.  

I get that it is upscaled, but I'm wondering how different upscaled 2.7k recorded through clear view zoom could look versus an APS-C mode (which doesn't exist).

 

But wouldn't any upscaled 2.7k to 4K image be a little soft?

If you're cropping the center of the 4K image in post, you'd throwing out a lot of image data.  I'd imagine it would look better to zoom in camera, then downscale to 2.7k in post.

 

Any other a7s2 owners notice that, despite the fact the camera won't record 4k in APS-C internally, you can digitally zoom from 1.0x, 1.4x, all the way to 4x?

 

What is the difference between a 1.5x zoom, and shooting in APS-C? Isn't it essentially the same thing? 

this exactly why i keep asking if: with the ML hack, shooting RAW, do we still have the capability to record to an external drive via the HDMI port, so we can have a prores and raw file of the same material...no one seems to want to answer this, though if you have the hack, as it seems a lot of people on this forum including andrew do, why cant you answer this simple question.

You get HDMI out, but not uncompressed clean from the 1.2.1 firmware update.

 

The hack is for the previous firmware, and DOES NOT give CLEAN HDMI out.  You could, however, record your compressed "dirty" HDMI out (I assume with sound) and edit it as a dub... if you had a quick turn around time.

Somebody will make a CF to SSD adapter so that we'll get the FULL 167MB/sec throughput from the CF Slot - this is a given.

 

But... will you want to carry that extra stuff around when someone else will produce a CF card fast enough to handle the data too?

 

I think, some a experimental standpoint... the developers need to figure out why people aren't able to convert the larger than 4gb files, and MORE IMPORTANTLY how to pair the workflow down into a single step! 

 

I don't want to shoot raw only then to have to convert it to ProRes 422 to edit it... that is (excuse my french) bullshit.  What is the point if I can't have it in my NLE?

Andrew - what about the Delkin Devices 1050x? Anyone trying those? They claim the write speed is 120MB/sec.

Also, fine print on Toshiba's site says the 1066x cards write to a max of 95MB/sec...

A CF to SATA SSD adapter sounds like the logical conclusion to me.

 

I want my HDMI port for my EVF.

 

I bet we'll see CF to SSD adapters within days.  CF cards are essentially IDE drives anyway.  It should be very possible to get the FULL 167MB/sec from the UDMA 7 standard in the 5D3 to a SSD.  

 

*Note: this is a good place for you entrepreneurs out there to start your million dollar idea!  

I would be completely shocked if Canon didn't cripple the 7D2 so that this feature was impossible.

 

Honestly, I wish they'd just put a thunderbolt port on the damn thing... but you know... they have a market to protect.

At this point, i think there is strong evidence that Canon gave ML the green light

on this. And I wouldn't be surprised if Canon was actively helping ML.

Really?  The thought was going through my mind.  Canon will sell a million of these cameras with their help... but I don't know.  Helping them?  How?

 

If they wanted to help them, they'd "accidentally" leak the source code for the actual firmware.  Every step ML takes forward is essentially a guessing game.

That's a good point.  I would imagine ML can expect a nice little lawsuit when raw goes into public release...

 

On the 1DX, with that ethernet port, raw could kick some serious butt!

I think all these guys will flock to this 'upgrade' (i've decided to stop calling it a hack) when they're able to shoot both raw, and ProRes 422 HQ over HDMI with the 1.2.1 firmware... one day.

 

When it is stable, and working on 1.2.1, the 5D3 will be the most capable camera you can buy for under $15K.

 

It is really a shame that neither Philip nor Vincent have mentioned this 'upgrade' officially on their blogs.  Not a word from Vincent, and it barely came as a footnote from Philip Bloom.

 

I wonder why that is?

Furthermore, I don't like Vincent's movies very much.  He is a bad storyteller.  *my opinion.

No, people should be treated with a basic level of respect when you don't actually know what you're talking about, which is the case when accusing Vincent Laforet of just being a salesman. He's given enough to be given a basic level of respect i believe. Anyway, i'm not going to argue anymore, lets do some positive and informative posts instead?

I'm not accusing him of anything.  He is always popping up to sell you a new product.  Furthermore, I'm not arguing either... this is my opinion.

 

Andrew is doing scientific camera testing, and runs a blog to inform people.  Vincent sells you toys.

 

I prefer the scientific point of view that (regardless of the backend processing) this does pose an interesting development to the industry.

 

Andrew has a ton of my respect as I have been reading his blog for a long long time.

 

Vincent is always trying to sell me something, and I don't take everything he says at face value.

 

Also, 5D3 raw is amazing.  ML FTW!!!! :-)

This is true: IMDB doesn't list commercials, music videos, or corporate videos... because they aren't films.

 

I am saying, which you are disrespectfully assuming is an attack, that he is a salesman - selling you products, and selling himself to

that industry.  Is he an artist?  Maybe.  Is he an independent filmmaker? No.  But he certainly tries to make you think he is...

 

His opinion is rooted in the fact that a hacked 5D3 is worth to him what a production manager sees it as renting for on LensRentals.com - $116/day.  Why would he want a commercial to shoot with that when he can get them to rent a c500 from him for $900/day and it'll do basically the same thing?

 

I'm not disrespecting him, I am merely warning you to not take his word as fact.  He is making assumptions about an early stage hack and attempting to dissuade people from seeing it as professional.

 

He isn't an independent filmmaker, he is a salesman.  The last time you saw him, in fact, he was attempting to sell you a $15k stabilizer.

 

Vincent Laforet = Salesman.

I didn't say I don't respect him.  But, he is a salesman - plain and simple.

 

Honestly, it's a touch disrespectful that you would assume I was being disrespectful.  

 

My hypothesis - Vincent Laforet and Philip Bloom are salesmen.  Prove me wrong?

 

This is Vincent Laforet's IMDB page.

http://www.imdb.com/name/nm3667064/?ref_=fn_al_nm_1

 

&

 

This is Philip Bloom's imdb page

http://www.imdb.com/name/nm2423275/?ref_=fn_al_nm_1

 

As I said, I genuinely like Philip Bloom as a personality.  

 

But (mostly) everything they're listed as doing coincides with the release of a new camera or gadget.

 

They aren't filmmakers, they're bloggers and salesman.

 

Stanley Kubrick would have jumped all over a full-frame RAW digital camera that could shoot 12,800 ISO with his 0.96 lens for $3k.

 

These guys are here, as pawns, for a BOOMING industry of camera technology.  *my opinion.  (and again, Philip is cool)

 

A hacked camera that is 1 year old (especially one that they both took a blogger's dump on) isn't profiting them in any way.

Vincent isn't a filmmaker anymore... He is a salesman. Philip Bloom is too.

This hack keeps this camera viable until people actually NEED 4k in the home.... Which is at least 5-15 years away.

With every new camera, there is a new gadget... Something for Vincent and Philip to 'review' and endorse so you will buy it.

Are they paid for it, no (maybe)... But they certainly profit from it - not just but clicks on ads on their sites... but as long
As they can stay relevant they can keep working.

I like them, and honestly think Philip is pretty cool... But I wouldn't take their opinions about a camera hack and the future
of anything as fact. They are salesmen for a booming industry!

I understand that about RAW, but would you mind posting one of the low-light frames with the candle on?

 

I'm very interested in this hack, and would put it on my 5D3... but I literally just upgraded it to 1.2.1 for a project that requires the Atomos.

 

It'll be great once they apply Magic Lantern with the RAW hack to 1.2.1, and we can record soundless RAW images and ProRes 422 HQ over HDMI at the same time...  but I'm probably just dreaming...  :-/

Andrew, would you mind posting a frame from the highest ISO of the test?

This is very awesome stuff that is going on, I just want to see how the extreme low light shots hold up as compared to the 800 ISO frame you posted.

Thanks.