Derek Weston

Andrew I really like your blog and I don't want to come across like a d**k, but I've been wanting to ask you something for a while now and with this article I feel I have to. It's a genuine, respectful question - it's not intended to be confrontational:

 

Do you need to reevaluate what EOSHD is about?

 

From where I'm standing - admittedly the very bottom of the pile - some of the 'guiding principles' seem to be rapidly loosing prominence.

 

From 'About EOSHD':

I know you're not recommending the Cooke lenses, and that your intention is partly to use them for comparison, but still - Cooke and the above just don't go together. TBH I was also a little surprised at how enthusiastically you've jumped on the (GH?)4K 'evolution'. Which leads me to a slightly more delicate question ...

 

From the EOSHD Legal Disclaimer:

If this seems out of order I apologise, but I come to this blog believing I know where you're coming from. Does the above still hold true? Associated is a pretty broad and loose term.

 

I'm not intending to criticise you - obviously it's natural that you move onward and upward. I'd just like to get a clearer picture of where you're coming from, or perhaps where you think EOSHD is going.

 

I think it's changing.

I don't know, I see plenty of prosumer gear reviewed still. I think you've got to remember that everybody here is a gear-head. So if you've got a chance to get your hands on something really interesting and give it a whirl, it's hard to say no.

 I don't think this takes away from the fact that most of the equipment reviewed here is clearly within reach of the low(er) budget prosumer sort.

Grabbed a few shots of Durham Cathedral last night. Some of it looks like crap I know, but I persevere.

 

https://vimeo.com/85432810

 

SHOT WITH:
Nikon D5300
Nikkor 50mm f1.8 AIs (wide-open and f8)
Neutral Profile (contrast right down, sharpness at 2)
ISO 3200 and 6400 (Durham Cathederal was lit, but it was otherwise very dark to the naked eye)
25fps; 1/50" and 1/30" shutter speed (the D5300 won't go below 1/30" in manual movie mode, which is annoying as the UK is on a 50Hz grid)
All handheld.

 

POST:
FCP 10.1
Neat Video applied to all shots
Sharpening 3.5% (I'm still not convinced I'm getting optimum sharpness out of this camera)
Stabilization: some shots use FCP 10.1's new "InertiaCam", which is extremely good with some shots, not so good with others. I haven't figured out the logic yet. There are a lot of unpleasant stabilization artefacts in this video - I tried the Lock & Load free trial but it didn't do much better than FCP's SmoothCam, so I'm not sure about buying it. Perhaps I should persevere with keyframing a bit more before deciding. InertiCam did much better than L&L with certain shots.

 

Music: Slight Night Shiver by M83

DR and lowlight look great. Just too soft. Wonder if HDMI would fix that.

http://www.43rumors.com/ft5-official-gh4k-announcement-on-february-7/

The sensor doesn't quite top 12 shooting raw stills. That'd be an incredible improvement, I kind of doubt we're talking about 15 actual stops.

I think one of the main points the article was making was that due to the way the sensor is sampled with 4k (less data loss) we'll have better looking images as a result. We're using existing sensor technology -- it's been there for years. We're just starting to get the most out of those sensors in terms of video processing.

This is a big deal even if you're shooting 1080p -- the 4k enabled cameras will flat out produce a much better image.

He also pointed it out that the bottle neck for a greater image wasn't necessarily the codec in many instances recently, just the sampling of the sensor. That was my take away.

Hardware? I wouldn't worry too much. 4th generation i7 quad core processors are showing up in dell computers < 800 dollars. Memory is cheap. 4k won't kill you. Quad core with a good video card should be fine, I'd think.

Maybe just lower the exposure? I mean...that's how we've always shot stuff? Isn't it? Ir is everyone here an Epic user?

Right. I mean, the foreground was REALLY bright for a midday exposure including the sky. At least that was my sense. I can shoot with my 14 stop d800 towards certain parts of the sky in a landscape shot and blow it out if I were to properly expose for foreground.     I mean, maybe I'm reading it wrong, but, it seems a less aggressive exposure would stack up alright.

Maybe just lower the exposure? I mean...that's how we've always shot stuff? Isn't it? Ir is everyone here an Epic user?

Right. I mean, the foreground was REALLY bright for a midday exposure including the sky. At least that was my sense. I can shoot with my 14 stop d800 towards certain parts of the sky in a landscape shot and blow it out if I were to properly expose for foreground.     I mean, maybe I'm reading it wrong, but, it seems a less aggressive exposure would stack up alright.

Whoa, I hope it's true.

Yeah, that puts it in play for me since I'll need something for this spring under 200. I was pretty much sold on the GH3 as was.

Really eager to hear what the specific offerings are. May pre-order for the first time in my life.

Focal lengths you want to shoot at is entirely up to you. Can't answer that for you, depends on what you want to shoot. If you have no idea I'd probably get something less expensive to start with. (or at least buy used)

As for adapters... you don't want to compromise quality. Would be dumb to spend all that money on a really nice lens and then throw some shitty adapter on it. Research the adapters. I would think things that don't introduce anymore glass wouldn't be a problem. I'd worry more about adapters that introduce glass, that's where you can lose quality. (although the speedbooster has been tested and verified to cause no resolution loss -- in fact may add resolution in the middle, really great engineering you pay for)

Another issue you be changing aperture -- can you do this manually with your lens? Will your adapter provide that for you? I know the speedbooster provides that. (clickless, too)

Yeah the clipping in some of those shots is very very bad. Really don't like the look of the footage, I know why I prefer the more Cinematic look with large sensor and more importantly DR.

Lots of shots taken with very bright light. Most video solutions would blow out the clouds period if they were to have that much light on the foreground. That we saw minor blown highlights is no big deal considering the lighting and exposure. (again, really bright foreground, know it down a few stops and you'd be just fine with the clouds) 

I thought the first shot had a polarizer or something. 
 

Wow. That ain't bad looking. 1 inch sensor. Seems to be really good dynamic range too. 12x range? 4k? Handles highlites? Could be my run and gun cam.

Although upon loading up high res and examining a bit... mediocre looking compression. (then again, it's on youtube)

Wonder how much 4k will offset mediocre codecs. Will be interesting.

F35 vs option 3

 

Global shutter, higher resolution for far more detail-downsamples from 12.4mp ccd revolutionary super 35mm sensor, better skin tones, richer colors, 4:4:4 colorspace, processes color far more efficiently for each pixel, 10 bit uncompressed,12 bit w/srmemory, drastically higher dynamic range. NIKON D5300 beats F35 in dynamic range only, gh3,gm1,g6 beats the f35 in nothing except weighs less. sony F35 -24lbs , two weeks ago i did deadlifts 520 lbs for 5 times so sony f35's weight should be of no concern.

My uncle happens to be a professional fitness trainer and can deadlift 580lbs and prefers the gh3 and panasonic stuff because he is into cavediving and there is no way a f35 would work underwater unless you had a death wish! Pick the best tool for the job!

On the GH3 with speedbooster what f-stop would the sigma lens become?

http://www.computingbits.com/photography/fstop/

If you look at the metabones page it says that it gives you one stop. So 1.2

1.Black magic pocket camera

2.d5300

3. gh3

3.gm1

3.g6/gh2 hack

 

In that order.  options 1 and 2 are not as good as sony F35 though.

Is option 3 better than the F35 though?

Any realistic release date on this thing? Just conjecture as far as I can tell, thus far. . .

D5300 dynamic range beats sony cine alta F35- camera that shot tron legacy a movie that cost 170 million dollars to make. If its codecs you like don't get gh3 - buy hyperdeck shuttle 2 on amazon for $275.00 plug it in d5300 and get 8 bit 4:2:2 all intra frame and a bitrate that will blow the gh3 out of the sky. With the hyperdeck shuttle 2 the dynamic range on the d5300 will have surpassed Red One Mx. Don't bother with G6 or GM1 their codec is sad. Don't any one spend money on panasonic untill gh4 comes out this year. Regarding the 70d canon should be ashamed of them selves putting up a model like that to compete against nikon and panasonic-i tried it out at a store i couldn't believe how awful that thing was, that camera's resolution is atrocious.  D5300 image is amazing , rich image,indie filmmakers throw away 7d use d5300 image at sundance.  GH3 resolution is good not great xf300 soundly defeats it, any of the consumer flagship camcorder models from sony, canon, panasonic equals or beats.  D5300 detail is good enough considering it obliterates gh3 in everything else.  I have 7 grand saved up i only need $3,150 than i can buy f35 package on ebay.

I'd like to see some video of the d5300 beating up the gh3. I haven't seen footage that outshines what I've seen people do with the gh3 yet. Maybe it can, but i'd like to see some evidence of it. It looks less detailed. Hopefully I can find some footage of hdmi out video with the d5300. Haven't seen it yet.

Samuel Hurtado, who created the Flaat profiles, thinks the D5300 is "best in class" from his preliminary tests. See this thread.

 

I shot this video on the 5300:

 

Thanks for that. Very interesting. I've read flaat 13 is a little noisy in the shadows, but 12 should be useable. Watched a few other videos of d5300 and d5200... seem really good dynamic range wise. Man, the only thing that gets me is that the resolution just doesn't seem as good as the gh3. Those images have more pop clarity to them. But perhaps part of it is post processing, wonder how good the d5300 can look. Wish there were more videos.



 

Jason, FYI:

 

The D5300 doesn't have a headphone jack.

 

Any claim that the GH3 gives better video quality than the D5300 is entirely subjective. The GH3 has better resolution, but the D5300 has better dynamic range, colour, low light and a larger sensor. I prefer the D5300 image to the GH3's. The GH3 is easier to use for video, so in that way you may get better video from it. The D5300 is a bit of a pain to use, but if you're talking about graduating to pro stuff like BMPC4K down the road, you need to learn your way around a camera anyway.

 

The G6, GM1 and GX7 are the only Panasonic models with focus peaking AFAIK.

 

Personally I wouldn't buy any Canon APS-C DSLR - including the 70D. Moire, aliasing and softness are deal breakers for me (and relative to D5300 poor low light and DR too). I own a G6 and a D5300, having sold my Canon 600D because I was tired of softness, moire and aliasing. You'll get that with a 70D too. Autofocus might be nice, but if you're looking to learn how to shoot like a pro then manual is the way to go.

 

The G6 is by far the best deal out there at the moment for video. I would recommend it as a perfect camera for a beginner who wants to learn how to shoot video 'properly' - it has all the tools you need and is so easy to use compared to Canon, Nikon etc. The difficulty is deciding whether to go for MFT glass or get an adapter/speed booster and use Nikon mount glass. MFT is perhaps the easy route as it's small and communicates with the camera. SB + Nikon mount (e.g. Sigma 18-35; AI-s manual primes) is the best investment because you can use them on almost any future camera you buy, the result is more filmic than MFT, and the SB gives you Super-35mm crop and improved low-light. The G6 gives you all the tools you need to shoot with manual lenses anyway (peaking, histogram, etc). Resolution of the G6 is much better than the D5300, and it's easier to use, but in all other ways I prefer the D5300 image.

 

My 2 cents  :)

d5300's sensor has better dynamic range, but I've not seen that this translates to better dynamic range in video as compared to the GH3. Any evidence you can point to for this?

 

From what I understand, d5300 should be better quality of video wise. Definitely a better sensor.

It slams the 70d in photography. Not close. You're talking 24mp, no AA filter, and dynamic range at lower isos that easily trumps the full frame 5D III.

So for me it'd be an easy choice:

http://www.dxomark.com/Cameras/Compare/Side-by-side/Nikon-D5300-versus-Canon-EOS-70D___919_895

All that said. . . the Panasonic gh3 is going to produce better video quality, easily.  (expect maybe in really low light situations compared to the d5300 perhaps)  But would lag behind the d5300 a bit in stills while being just as good if not better than the canon.

I'm not much a fan of what canon is producing anymore. The raw video hack can be amazing... but the rest is mediocre and you can easily do better with other systems. Their sensor tech is outdated.

Still a great sensor to plug into that body.  Overall, close enough for horseshoes and hand grenades if you ask me.  The GM1 shoots very comparable to the GH3...and have you seen how small it is!?

 

Anyway, it's gotten to the point where the technology is pretty dang democratized.  If you got a visual story to tell, plenty of tools out there to do it that are willing to help and don't cost much at all.

 

(and affordable 4K is on the near horizon)

 

Sergio Leone managed to make a lot more with a lot less.  Time to go make something!

No doubt. I'm going through some of my old canon t3i raw files right now and am still impressed how much I can get out of them if I'm smart. (and that sensor is pretty much in line with these)

Reading these forums always leads me to analysis paralysis. If I had to grab something now I'd just get a gh3 and be done with it as it's the best tool for the job right now for me and produces really good looking video. (of course I have a few months to wait and see if anything really cool happens or is released, so, more analysis paralysis)

As mentioned in the EOSHD article, this is a new OEM sensor from Panasonic.  The GH3 is not a Panasonic sensor so IQ discrepancies are expected.

 

But, dang, I'm not getting hung up on pixel peeking charts and tests and voodoo with these things.  To my eye so far they look awesome and they're packed into a nondescript lightweight body.  That's what I need for what I'm trying to accomplish.  Is the image the best on the market?  No, but that's not important to me.  I doubt Picasso's painting creativity would be diminished if his brush had 50 more bristles in it than another one.

 

Sooner or later you actually have to do stuff with these things.  The tools we have in '14 are nuts compared to where things were just a few years ago.

Sure. Like I stated, the DXOmark analysis doesn't take into consideration video compression, so who knows what we actually end up with. Thought it was noteworthy because it would appear the sensor itself wouldn't seem to be any better if the DXOmark analysis is correct:

http://www.dxomark.com/Cameras/Compare/Side-by-side/Panasonic-Lumix-DMC-GM1-versus-Panasonic-Lumix-DMC-GX7-versus-Panasonic-Lumix-DMC-GH3___920_901_842

Interesting. Sensor itself doesn't seem to have as much dynamic range or low light ability as the gh3. (per dxomark)

Of course, we're talking about processed video output here, not raw images. (which should bear out that the gh3 would be superior in low light)

Bolex looks really neat and offers a more complete package than BMCC. I'm definitely looking forward to enjoying gobal shutter shooting some day.

But man, I wish TBs of data cost what GBs of data do!  If they did I'd be all over this. We'll get there, but man, cost/workflow in all raw is still tough for me to justify. 

 

If I were you doing what you're doing, I'd go for a 4K camera.  I mean, if you're really serious about what you're after.  If it's legit scientific research you're trying to accomplish, then 4K is a worthwhile investment.  It's also going to give you options in post that you're not going to have otherwise.  Smoothing the tracking bumps from inside a moving car, for instance.  Digitally zooming into specific areas, etc.  Also, a cam that shoots 4k @120fps would be pretty incredible for extreme weather shots and post analysis.

 

Ultimately though, I'd take 4K resolution over RAW from something like a 5D @1080.  

 

If you're just chasing some thrills and want to get there on a budget why not a hacked gh2 with the fastest flash cards you can get?  If you want to get footage to a "network" then sending them the captured file (compressed) is the quickest way to do so over the intertubes.

Not scientific. May or may not make money on footage. Footage may be used for a doc or stock.  (plus, I love storm chasing, period)

I could afford an expensive setup, but I don't feel I can justify it. I know the gh3 (or gh2 for that matter) would be good enough.   Just trying to feel out my options. 

I'd love to do 4k, but at this point don't think I can at a reasonable price with a reasonable workflow. Maybe something will come out in the next few months before storm chase season that uses the h265 codec, which ought to enable 4K as a legit endeavor for folks like me.  (we're all going to end up there in the next few years,4k, definitely wouldn't invest a lot in a new system at this point... probably buying used whatever I do anyway)

Now that you bring up external recorders, the BM makes sense again. If you're willing to carry around an external recorder, and rig it up, it's an option to consider.
All I could think about whilst shooting on it, is that I wanted a more compressed codec! ProRes HQ is an incredible format but for most of my work (and I assume yours) it's overkill, I don't need it, not to mention raw. It would be great if Blackmagic implemented LT, 422 or even AVCHD in their cameras. Some would argue that if we wanted compressed codecs we should go for a DSLR, but a DSLR wouldn't let me shoot HQ or raw when I need it to, a Blackmagic will. It would be great to have both. One for efficient storage, editing, and one for optimal image quality, and an external recorder will do just that. 

It's still not a perfect camera for practicality, when I say ergonomics I don't just mean the physical design (forgive my English), I mean the whole experience of using it, things like the inability to delete clips or format memory cards, even the placement of the memory card slot is cumbersome when swapping cards using a rig or a tripod, also having to go into buried menus to change ISO and White Blanace, the fact that it doesn't do Auto White Balance, and that's impractical for my documentary/run&gun style shooting. 

If you can live with these, and willing to use an external recorder, rigs/cages then yes maybe it's a great option. 
But if you want practicality, ease of use, fast and easy workflow still with good IQ, a GH3 or Rx10 will do you wonders)
 

Everything you say is true. Plus, if I got dramatic footage I'd like to be able to send it off to a network halfway quickly. Converting giant files isn't ideal. 

Anyway, reading more, apparently the cheaper blackmagic external recorder I was speaking of doesn't do the smaller codecs. So the cheapest option out there (that takes me down to 100mbps) is the atoms ninja II... but that's 600+

Basically eliminates the pocket. The regular bmcc would be more interesting if they had a firmware update that offered lossless compression of raw (down to around 3mb instead of 5mb) and other prores codecs. If that comes out soon, I may re-evaluate, but right now a definite lean towards the GH3.