odie

Yes, finally someone that gets it. Resolution is such a red herring utilized mainly as a marketing tactic it's ridiculous. Colors, dynamic range and highlight retention(!) is what matters. Give me an SD scan from a Vision3 stock any day over a 5K Epic HFR 3D whatever.

​Hey!
 
EOSHSD/KODAK for 2015 get those cooks on an arri LT or moviecam...with kodak 5203...AMAZING!!!
Wish you and everyone all the best HAPPY NEW YEAR!  
 

to come back to the main issues of this thread, here are the results of my personal shogun tests and experiences:
1) do i need a shogun?  yes, except a too glossy display it seems to be a great, useful, future proof product which is a great companion to every camera even only as a monitor.  if they implement 4k60p as promised it could still be in the bags alongside with future camera releases in 5 years.
2) is the shogun better than its competitors like the (new) odyssey?  yes, when it comes to shooting good 4k footage.  aside from several detail features mainly because it has the only 1080p screen, which is helpful for 4k quality.
3) do i need the shogun for a specific camera?  for the a7s it's essential, as otherwise there's no 4k.  for the 1DC highly recommended because of all the peaking tools and having a flexible screen, although it doesnt work as a recorder.  for the gh4 it could go without as the onboard screen can do a good job, and the internal recording looks the same in real world.  for a c500 it technically would not work as a recorder.  for all 1080p cameras a cheaper monitor would do it.  the only 1080 job that makes sense with the shogun is on red cameras, who have a massive internal sensor crop when shooting 1080.  the shogun can finally allow 1080 wide angle shots with a scarlet or epic, although not with red raw codec.
4) which camera is the best companion for the shogun?  aside from the price, for lowlight and overall features it would be the canon 1dc.  for more than 5k and higher frame rates, it's the red epic (not dragon because of noise and redcode limitations).  as the red onboard monitors have some more camera-specific features, i would only use a shogun for wide angle 1080p master recording (see above).
5) which budget camera is best for the shogun?  right now sony a7s, because it tops the other competitors with its full frame and lowlight abilities.
6) after buying the shogun, which camera should i buy that i don't have yet?  probably none. if sony comes up with a sony a7s2 that has internal stabilization as the new a7, that would be a very useful new feature that tops the old model.   canon did show that they can deliver top quality (like with the lowlight abilities of the 1dc already two years ago), it's just a question of time when they make it available in cheaper products.  i think it might happen in 2015!  two days ago i received the new 100-400 lens, that is so good and sharp that i really think about selling my 200-400/4.  it mainly did show that canon now is willing to charge only 1/5th of the price of the same quality they did offer in expensive products two years ago.

for me..a 35mm film camera..is cheaper than the alexa rental post etc..and I wouldn't buy any high end digital camera unless you can rent it..
when you have smaller projects a cp 2 zeiss lens on the 5d m3...(fast and light and a great b cam)

like Kubrick the arri 2c + kodak...=CINEMATIC NIRVANA

Yep you are right, I still believe film is the best thing out there to shoot a movie, and I hope it's still going to survive the digital era, because film is how cinema was born!

I love the look of film, sadly I've never been able to make a production with it. I've put countless hours into digital production and post processes, just to try and emulate the look and feel, because I love it's non-linearity, spirit and heart.
 
I do shoot still photographic film though and love it. One hopes that somehow, film motion picture will have a resurrection outside of Hollywood, and become more convenient to use somehow, by way of new technologies...

The dynamic range just gets me on the GH4.  I preferred the 5d in every shot.  It jumps out at me in highlights mostly.  

my favorite camera is THE ARRI LT..
 
but for (video) digital work ..red one mx is a beast…and (5dm3 nice with raw)  

is this raw 550d?  lens?

I shot my short film on the 550D. Some shots still look quite amazing:
 

I would say in first place it depends on what you are going to do with the camera...
I have a GH3 and an OMD em5 which are absolutely enough for my needs (my customers don't have an idea of 4k and raw) - I don't
produce big stuff just for the web and some corporate stuff.
 
But when I want to make something special I grab one of my filmcameras choose appropriate stock and decide carefully on my motiv, subject, cinematography. That is a totally different approach and absolutely worth a consideration. Sometimes I have got the feeling the people who film are much more focussed on an artistic and creative work rather then tech-specs. And keep in mind for film you get a 100 year "warranty" (good storage needed)  :)

I've been experimenting with Resolve and ACR, trying to find the best workflow for RAW. By best, the highest quality possible in the shortest amount of time.  ACR+AE runs a few frames/sec on my 4-core MBP and about 6-fps on my 12-core Mac Pro (both cases running with AE multiframe processing on). Resolve runs near real-time on the laptop, and slightly faster on the Mac Pro (Quadro 5000 is getting long in the tooth- a newer consumer card with hacked mac ROM would be faster).
 
While I have been able to get Resolve looking closer to ACR, I have not been able to match it.
http://www.dvxuser.com/V6/showthread.php?320727-Results-of-testing-various-5D3-RAW-workflows
 
The first goal was to get Resolve to show an accurate image of what was shot. All the experiments with BMD Film color space and LUTs weren't able to do this (including the EOSHD and Hunters "Alexa" LUTs). I also experimented with creating 3D LUTs from scratch.
 
The 5D3 RAW footage is pretty much linear RGB. It appears it can be transformed to BT.709/Rec709 with a simple matrix (linear transform). Using the Rec 709 color space and gamma in Resolve, I can get much closer to the correct colors for the scene shot. Unless we are going from 14-bit to 10-bit (for example), it doesn't make sense to convert to a log color space since we've already got everything captured in linear. From there we can grade for style then save out the final render with a Rec 709 compliant color space (it's not clear what Resolve does with out of gamut colors- clip, etc.). Log makes sense in a camera capturing and preserving dynamic range to a file format which can't otherwise store the full range sufficiently. Log can also make sense if one wishes to use a 3D LUT that needs log as input. However, there a many different log formats, ARRI, Canon, Sony, etc. all make different versions. At the end of the day, we need to get back to something like Rec 709 for broadcast (of course internet test videos are excluded).
 
After comparing ACR, Resolve 10, and AMaZE (used by mlrawviewer: http://www.magiclantern.fm/forum/index.php?topic=9560.0, which plays MLV's in real-time and can output ProRes HQ (a little faster than ACR, but still slow (AMaZE only used for export)) debayering, they are all very close. ACR is doing something with color and microcontrast that puts it above everything else right now. It looks very accurate and also 'pops' in a way that I haven't been able to get from Resolve (granted, I'm just now really learning it).
 
I'm planning for a ~90-minute final product which means lots of footage. Even shooting Robert Rodriguez style (limited takes- edit as much as possible in-camera), there will be terabytes of footage. For now I'm thinking to use Resolve to make ProRes/DNxHD proxies quickly then go back and only process necessary clips with ACR+AE for the final cut (until or unless I can figure out how to make Resolve look as good as ACR). Or batch convert ACR+AE overnight and replace proxies as I go (deleting the massive RAW files).
 
5D3 RAW is amazing, but requires a lot of planning, work, and most significantly, drive space.
 
 

http://vimeo.com/88826657

>NEW: The EOSHD Music Challenge - pick tracks from up and coming singers and bands to suit the mood of my cinematography pieces and future camera tests!

In my opinion the Canon 7D is currently the best budget solution for shooting raw video. There's plenty of used 7D bodies here on eBay for around $750 - and that is practically a steal for 14bit raw video from a Super 35mm sized sensor... Stills camera is a mere bonus!

So to the big question - does the Mosaic Engineering VAF-7D filter completely cure the 7D's raw video of moire and aliasing?

Read the full article here

'?do=embed' frameborder='0' data-embedContent>>
 
Interesting to see how these lists compare a year later. Resolution isn't everything- I would put the Alexa on top for overall image quality. They designed their sensor after learning from years of experience building film scanners.
 
We used to argue about whether digital effects for audio would ever match or surpass analog gear. Finally a few years ago, even the most stalwart musician friend finally agreed digital matched analog with the Axe Fx: http://www.fractalaudio.com
 
I just watched MiB II again and was blown away with some of the shots in terms of skin tone and color (Eastman EXR 100T 5248). Is it possible to convert my 5D3 (RAW) or FS700 (RAW) to look like that with something like FilmConvert (two cameras I use)? No, not yet, as I don't think anyone has accurately modeled the film process well enough yet to emulate what film does with light. Initial ADCs and DACs sounded harsh and brittle when CD's were first released (folks still dig records and tapes). Now digital audio is fantastic (and most folks listen to highly compressed audio on iPod/Phone/Droid or cheap computer speakers!).
 
Digital cameras are still very much like early digital audio. Matching the pleasing look of film has not yet been achieved with digital; so far ARRI has gotten the closest, and FilmConvert has made a good start. Accurately modeling and simulating film with digital cameras will happen someday. Why bother? Because it looks better, especially for narrative (where unreality and dreaminess are helpful in storytelling). Dynamic range, resolution, lack of aliasing, and accurate color processing are all very important. The last piece of the puzzle is (optionally) being able to get highlights and skin tones etc. to look like film.

What does chocolate taste like? Sweet? What does sweet taste like?(not trying to sound rude) You know it when you taste it.
I would say that filmic, which is a term I use a lot when talking about video is:
 
Has A Surreal feel to it, dream like, definitely not in the present, different from real life
Unlike the immediate presence of being "live" whether being live in person or on something like television or video.
Plus the other qualities mentioned above DR, sometimes shallow DOF etc.

I haven't tried it, but probably not. But if your main use of 4K is to slightly re-frame your shot and deliver in 1080P, I think that it's fine for that.
 
Also, using the 5D with anamorphic lenses can offer pretty high resolutions. Using the 1600x1200 crop mode with a 2x lens can give you a 3200x1200 image, in raw.
 
I'm not saying that the 5Diii is going to be better for everyone. I think that the GH4 will probably be a really nice camera. But even before production models start rolling out, we already know that it can't match the 5D's 1080P codec. So, if you're mostly interested in really good-looking 1080P, I think that the 5D with Magic Lantern remains a strong contender.

Oh it does indeed help. The percentage of hardcore gadget geeks is particularly high among the smartphone users, and to them the bigger numbers and other such buzzwords are essential. I doubt that the megapixel race is over in the camera market, either, it has just stalled for a while. First the small sensor (compact) cameras and smartphone cameras will start getting bigger megapixel counts again, and later perhaps the interchangeable lens cameras, too. 
But that's a topic for another discussion, isn't it.

Well of course 4K can look better, there's more resolution.  I'm just saying 1080, properly and dramatically shot, looks great as it is.  
 
My local camera shop has a pretty scuffed but otherwise perfectly functional used 5DII for sale at $730, so I exaggerated a bit on that one.
 
Anyway, my main point is the tools are cheaply there to create and create wonderfully on par to a pro level.  It's not to deny that better gear exists.

The "standard of videoing" is about a lot more then the number of pixels... What it does is allow access to higher resolution capture at a lower price point than before.
 
I'm in the "perfect 1080p" camp more than the "4K" camp, I'd like a small camera with 1080p ProeRes 444 like the Alexa. but the 4K number will sell this body to a lot of people I'm sure, regardless.
 
What this means (unfortunately) is that Canon will doubtlessly release a cheaper 4K body soon, but still with 4:2:0 8-bit recording. Seeing 4:2:0 8-bit in specs has now gone beyond annoying and started to become just... boring... :(

By doing the same thing, but different.
 
And then we all get to read various internet postings from fan boys.  They'll assert that because they made a decision to spend their money on Canon, it's so much better than Sony.  And Panasonic?  Forget about it, just because they were first, doesn't mean they're the best and so on and so on.
 
It's just that this time the phrase 4K will be used a whole lot more.
 
It's silly, but that's all part of what helps sells these things.

I think the GH4 is just the start of a big wave of lovely 4K shooting DSLRs and cinema cameras to come before NAB in April, so great for us, who have finite budgets :)
 
This spec and price is going to be hard to beat.
 
As for the industry, well, people are not going to swap out their F55 for one. But there's going to be very good commercial reasons to shoot 4K soon and it's VERY important Canon bring out better 4K solutions. The C500 isn't aimed at C300 users and the C300 doesn't shoot 4K. The 1D C is aimed at Hollywood and has no videographer features at all.
 
If Canon don't have a 4K version of the C300 at NAB, I think the GH4 could gain a lot of ground in that market, even though it's marketed as a consumer camera.

Panasonic didn't miss on anything. They heavily improved the GH3, it's a no brainer for journalist, high quality video and stills. What this release tells me is that a AF101 successor is right around the corner. Panasonic is smart IMHO, I bet we'll see a GH4, AF200 and the anticipated Vari Cam in 2014. I suspect what you're looking for you'll be happy once NAB rolls around. Coming out with a new AF series, 4K, 10 bit, higher frame rates along with the new Vari Cam could make Panasonic the new Blackmagic. Sonys not gonna beat down the F5, Canon has the c500, nothing from Nikon, Blackmagic needs to deliver before anything else, and sadly I haven't seen any normal decent footage from the DB yet, so the markets ripe. It's a great transition into 4k, terrific offering but the Gap is too wide between the GH4 and Vari cam, I think we'll all be happy this spring. I'll end with saying this review was one the best I've read in a while. Thanks

Forgot to add - Awesome review, Andrew!! ... You cut through all the bullshit and delivered the exact info I needed to know.  The other GH4 hands-on reviews are pretty pathetic by comparison.

Good reason for that! The ALL-I codec spreads the bitrate more thinly as every frame is separately compressed and stored. To get equivalent quality to IPB you need a much higher bitrate with an ALL-I codec, which is why the MJPEG codec on the 1D C is 500Mbit and a real card gobbler.
 
If you need intra-frame uncompressed 4K you can have it with the GH4's external box. Can't wait to see the image from that!
 
Yeah it adds bulk and size but it's not that heavy and as a whole, the GH4 + external box is still smaller and lighter than a C500 with external recorder, likely lighter than the Blackmagic Cinema Camera too, with much better ergonomics than the latter.