sam

 

 

What hotshoe mount is in use there and where does the image come from? Thanks.

 

​

 The mount is something I made, but is basically just an extension from the hotshoe with a mini ballhead. I think Amazon has hotshoe extenders http://www.amazon.com/HDE-HDE%C2%AE-Camera-Flash-Bracket/dp/B005EHGX64/ref=sr_1_sc_4?ie=UTF8&qid=1420669158&sr=8-4-spell&keywords=hotshoe+extender that may work?

I took the pic in early 2013 after thinking some about the design of the digital bolex.   Off topic, but  I think something like google glass, with a video feed and camera stats directly in front of your eyes so you are free to hold a camera however you wish would be an almost perfect way to monitor a camera. No glare, lightweight,  Probably not too far off!

    The main benefit comes from the exposure and focus aids, not to mention if shooting anamorphic, the image stretch.  As for ergonomics, you are correct. You still keep your hands exactly where you always would with full access to every button, with the added benefit of being able to reach the buttons from the evf (for false color or zebres for instance) without your hand leaving the camera as it would if mounted elsewhere.  The bottom handle is just for carrying (camera strap would also work) Magnetic mount would be nice, but the finder is snap on, and then you have to find someplace to store or hang from a strap and then realign when needed again.  Rhode mic threads right in.   I don't use mine rigged like this often,  but it does come in handy for keeping a lower profile.   Also, if shooting low angle, easily adjustable.    

"just a small light super-8 style camera that I can go filmmaking with and get the most cinematic image available to me."

​

Like this?  Zacuto evf mounted upside down for quick flipdown  finder

Well that depends on how the file was saved.  The gamma could of changed if a rec.709 (or Bt.601, same luma different chroma) image was saved in an Srgb color space (or vice versa). Now admittedly, it would be a slight change, but still noticeably visible. (test with a b/w gradient in rec.709 toggled between color spaces) Of course both the 1Dc and A7s files were probably saved using the same procedure, but the s and c  log would each respond differently to the gamma curve of the new color space.  If this were an issue,  one can still adjust each image to get an idea of dynamic range, but not one that's entirely accurate. 

The accuracy of one's display device and color management is also crucial when making an objective comparison, The difference between what Andrew and others are seeing could be somewhat drastic.   Based on the knowledge of Alexis Van Hurkman, Allan Teppur and Charles Poynton, I wouldn't use any monitor  without hardware calibration for objective comparison purposes.   A great article that briefly explains.  http://diglloyd.com/articles/Recommended/display-calibration.html  

 

 

 

That's what one would presume based on specs.​  However,  I recorded log 4k internal mjpeg and log 1080 prores 422 on the CD7Q simultaneously.  I downscaled the 4k internal (1.0 gamma for downscale) and compared the files side by side at 100% on a recently calibrated and profiled rec.709 display (hardware, not faux calibration through the video card) with proper ambient lighting.  To my surprise the banding and the majority of chroma noise in the file from the external recorder was eliminated when compared to the downscaled 4k.  In my opinion, the ability to saturate colors without adverse effects also improved, but I haven't got around to experimenting fully. A fun test for my purposes will be to compare uploaded versions of 4k internal vs downscaled 4k in post vs  1080 via Q7 vs  upscaled to 4k 1080 via Q7

 As an aside, while the 1Dc  produces some very nice images, obtaining rich saturated colors from the 8 bit internal 4k log can be a challenge, as a vimeo search will verify.  Not a problem if you desire a flat, log look which is currently en vogue. Alternatively, I have had some success  using a Vision Color picture profile combined with a Schneider Digicon filter which optically raises black levels while lowering highlights.  Flare, halation, and the need for a matte box are the downsides.

 

The Anamorphot on the 40mm canon pancake is the image I love out of the cam . The image it makes looks detailed without being overly sharp.  I would like to see what that combo looks like on the a7s but not sure how well that lens would work being all electronic  I also tried the canon 28mm 2.8 for the benefit of IS,  thinking the 1.3x crop might be close enough but it vignettes a little too much.

​I also found those luts a while back. The custom ones from Andy Shipsides work but the rec.709 from canon clipped highlights quickly. I think From what I've read and my own experience the Log from the 1dc is slightly different than that of the other c-log canons. (probably the BT601)   I think Looklabs neutral start works well with the 1dc camera patch applied as a drag and drop starting point.

Agree about the log sweet spot.  waveform would be great.

I wonder how the image from the 1DC looks recorded to the Shogun. The 1DC when set to 4k in cam and recorded uncompressed to Dpx  in the odyssey 7Q seems to eliminate the banding and noise of the Mjpeg in camera Log.  Also helps the aliasing and slight oversharpening when compared to 4k downscaled in post.  I also feel like I can push the image around more than the in cam Mjpeg or even transcoded to another codec.  It makes the 1DC a lot less portable, but the image is 100 % the best I can get out of the cam. 

​When James first got the Epic Dragon he posted a video still from the Epic (cant remember if he cropped or scaled the 6k down) and his 1Dc of the same scene.  He was very impressed by how close 1DC compared if I recall. 

 But, with variable compression ratios of your choosing + supposed16bit raw + film log+ high frame rates+ 6k on down + anamorphic modes I would take it for the $$$.  Anyone want to trade an Epic (or Scarlet Dragon) for my 1DC and some cash ?

 

Sam- after working with 5D3 raw, if I get a 7Q it will be to use ProRes or DNxHD 444 or 422, 10/12 bit. Raw is really only needed to perform better debayer (if using 12-bit). If the O7Q debayer is OK (looks like some purple fringing still needed to fix), then being able to edit straight from camera and save tons of time and disk space is the preferred way to go. I'd actually prefer XAVC (long GOP) to get even smaller files with high quality. If there's ever a need to go to a better camera, the ARRI Amira looks really good as a next step (vs. F5/F55). That said, going the other way to a GH4 is also looking tempting based on footage posted: 

(start around 5:52 for charts & skintones). Will be interesting to see how this 4K Sony camcorder compares.

Jcs agreed, massive files are costly in terms of hardware and time.  If cameras like the Amira at $4,500 just  to get on a waiting list are being considered as a next camera then obviously  time (which = $$$) is a big factor; disk space probably not a concern unless you are in a remote location and need to conserve.    This is a great point though.   Time in relation to cost , in my opinion, should be considered heavily as we all have a finite amount.

 

 As for the Aberrations, they at least are an easy fix compared to the alternative workflow!

 

 if 4k and ease of use are main considerations and the video from the gh4 is appealing ,  the fdr-ax1 for $4,500  could also be considered with built in nds, 35mm equiv. of 32-630mm f1.6 -3.4,   but with its sensor size, diffraction probably comes into play as evidenced by its maximum aperture of f11.

Yeah Jcs, Lucky you! I pixel peeped various raw files out of the fs700+ 7Q and they looked good.  

 

 2k 12 bit raw 240fps, 4k raw 60p,  (according to dvx...I believe,  It's not on CD's site that I could find)   4k 10bit compressed, and now 4k from the sensor to 1080 10 bit Prores that you mention, or an array of other compressed options or frame rates.

 

$6800 for ebay fs700 + $400 for upgrade from Sony + $3800 Q7 package  =  $11k    (+ very fast cpu to render all that raw)  

 

Also one  can use a speedbooster, different Nex adapters  or  the 18- 200 power zoom from Sony and have have super35 high frame rate ENG style cam.  

 

 Some complaints about the form factor, but a bare fs700 weighs almost exactly the same as a 1dc, and now without the need for Sony's lenghty and more expensive  add-on recorder, it's a fairly compact 4k camera and the softer footage of the avchd is only necessary when its wanted

Rumor has it  Atomos will announce such a recorder at NAB, but when that comes to market, who knows.  Andrew, love your passion.   To me, you are relentless in your pursuit of providing information on obtaining the best device, image, and price to the indie demographic. [web link removed]

 

Thanks for your hard work.

Currently the 7Q (or any other recorder) cannot record in 4k over hdmi as some I'm sure are aware.  Maybe in the future or with a paid upgrade as on the fs700.  So you cannot just hook up a monitor/4krecorder, you still need the Yagh. If the 7Q could do 4k, it uses proprietary ssds ($400 for a single 256gb) So, at least $800 for media, $2300 for recorder, $2000 Yagh + reasonable external power solution $200. + a rig to mount this together which I wont add to the cost.   So, with cables and the like, you are currently looking at $5,500 + rig to get 4k in 10 bit out of the gh4.  Is this worth it for a slightly larger than 1" sensor used for the 4k crop?   (small sensors with high pixel density are inherently noisier than large sensors which is partially why cinema cameras have large sensors; ie Alexa, F55, Red, etc... This article helps explain things a bit. www.redsharknews.com/technology/item/156-8-bit-or-10-bit-the-truth-may-surprise-you.   As Andrew said.  "Until now I’ve been no great fan of using external recorders. I found the quality gains to be virtually zero with DSLRs, no increase in colour depth or resolution and as for compression even with the Sony FS100 at just 24Mbit/s I was hard pressed to tell the difference between the externally recorded 220Mbit/s footage and internal AVCHD codec in terms of outright quality".  The article link above might partially explain why.      

Thankyou HMK, that is a much, much, better way to put it. The crayon example could be confused with colorspace. Meant to make an easy analogy to show steps of 8 vs 10 and failed.

Just to double check my months earlier results, I found a shot with some blue sky with banding that I took 2 weeks ago.  (4k 4:2:2 8 bit) I saved one copy as a 16 bit tiff.  I saved another exactly the same but downscaled by 50% using bicubic in ps.  I then opened them in ps and toggled between the images, one viewed at 200%, and the other at 400% so they would be the same enlarged on screen size.  The banding looked exactly the same in both and only the ever so slightest change in contrast which makes it appear a hair sharper., but really almost undiscernible. I then applied the same amount of saturation to each image to see if i could notice a difference in tonality.  Zero. One thing I must admit i forgot this time around is making sure the scaling was done in linear gamma.  I can't remember if photoshop has this as a default.    

Exactly.  same goes for 4k scaled to 1080.  I have done tests on my own 1dc (8 bit 4:2:2) months ago.  First I converted the 4k mjpeg to a 16 bit tiff. Then I Tried photoshop and its different scaling algorithms, pp, ae, resolve 10, capture one, and others to do the scale.   Viewed the results on a calibrated and profiled wide gamut nec pa271, much larger color space than rec 709/ srgb ( not that it makes much if any difference as long as they are viewed on the same screen).  Very difficult to tell the difference, if any, other than sharpness and noise.  My opinion, and from what I've read, is that Ae does the best scale as it has the newest algorithms according to Todd Kopriva at Adobe.    

 

 

 

Off topic:     Gh4 is interesting;  the sensor after the crop for 4k is barely larger than 1 inch.  That fact combined with the compression of 100 Mbps and 8bit 4:2:0 (unless Gh4+ Yagh + odyssey 7q+ codec license + propietary ssd = @ $7k from the info we currently have) means other options may be a better fit unless resolution (which does not necessarily = sharper, just more pixels unless downscaled) is your primary goal.  Look at this test done by http://***URL not allowed***/?p=21457 of the sony fdr ax1 with a 1/2.3" sensor and 100 Mbps compression, for around $4500.  Interesting!    

Tv Specialists have a test showing the advantage of downscaling 4k to 1080 on the 1dc vs in camera scale of the c300.  

 about 1:50 into the video.   They also missed focus on the 1dc in areas so it appears a little soft.   

You have a box of 1024 differnt color crayons and 4 boxes of 256 color crayons.  Combine all four boxes of 256 into a new box of 1024.  

Which one has more colors?   

From the unofficial Cooke owners club at NAB:  " We did some very critical tests with Leica Summilux-C lenses, Zeiss Master Primes, and the Cooke 5/i. We put them on digital cameras, looked at how much resolution they had. We looked for color fringing and many things, like distortion, and so on. They all looked very good.

We tested with the same lens projector we do for film. The lenses were all very, very close. We looked for breathing. We tested for color fringing, because that’s very critical on digital cameras–they see it. We put them all on our M.T.F. machine. They all had high M.T.F. We looked at what I call fall-off illumination, or shading–in other words, how bright it is in the center, how bright toward the edges. They were all very good. Some were a little bit better in one area, some in other areas.

They were so close that it didn’t matter a whole bunch. Then we did a film test. We did this on a stage that was very well lit by a very good DP, Isidore Mankofsky, ASC. We shot a grey scale, a color chart, and then we had a set with a desk and a practical lamp. We were looking for several different things, and one of them was narcissism (double image of hot spots) and other things.

We tested all of that, and there was a young lady that was supposed to be our model. Well, she got sick. She didn’t show up, and so there was a young woman there on the set. We asked her if she would be our model, and she agreed to that. She was about 27 years old, and she had no make-up on except what a normal lady would use to go out. You know, a little bit around her eyes, and she did have a little blemish on her face.

The film stock used on the test was Kodak 5219. The film was developed and we projected it. It looked better with the Cooke lenses. I was trying to analyze why it looked better with the Cooke lenses.

All the lenses were so close, the Leicas, the Master Primes, and the Cooke 5/I’s. Why did she look better? I analyzed it more carefully and what it is, the Leica lenses and the Master Primes have higher contrast, and they showed the blemish. Even though the Cooke lens is just as sharp, it’s not that high contrast. And it almost hid that blemish. It was almost gone. So this “Cooke Look†is a real thing. I wanted to say that. We’ve always known that–at least I always felt that–and so many people know that the Cooke look is good."     

 

I found this article  interesting.  The "look" comes from lower contrast and was not mentioned as noticeable except on the film test models skin portion of the test.    Also, For those wondering how the sharpness compares, here is a test by lensrentals comparing still and cine lenses in which the 50mm Cooke was mentioned.  www.lensrentals.com/blog/2012/01/the-great-50mm-shootout.     

Congrats Andrew I'm so jealous!