sam

Thanks for the kind words guys.  This was a fun and sort of insane shoot.
I've written up a few words on lens selection, lighting, and post workflow with some BTS stills here:
http://phfx.com/articles/forgedIn8K/
 
To answer a few questions.
@Dan Wake - Editing native REDCODE RAW is something I've been doing for a while.  This shoot was done this way using Adobe Premiere Pro CC which has GPU acceleration and adaptive resolution settings while editing.  I even ran some of these files through my laptop and was able to "work" effectively.  While this is not the only way of working, especially on longer projections with more content and assets, it's certainly something that doable not on a NASA supercomputer
@araucaria - 8K is interesting.  For display purposes I would prefer 8K to hit theatrical and exhibition use before it hits home.  At the moment and for a long time, like a decade plus, UHD 4K is going to be the focused format for home use.  Especially since every major studio has now come to an agreement on a UHD Premium Standard via the UHD Alliance.  The resolution itself can be down sampled of course and that provides certain advantages as you mentioned to the debayering process.  However, 8K will indeed land on screens and screens smaller than you think.  I wrote up a paper titled "The Window Effect" that explains much about resolution and optimum viewing distances not too long ago.  Here's a link to it:
http://www.phfx.com/articles/theWindowEffect/
 
@Jimmy - Thank you Jimmy.  IMAX theatrical presentation is one area I'd like to see this camera used the most.  
 
@DPStewart - Thanks Stewart.  Resolution is all about "what type" of resolution it is.  I have a great deal of experience in the world of motion picture film scanning and film's resolving power purely comes down to what format you are shooting, what stock you are using, and the glass you are shooting with.  Super 35mm for instance resolves about 4K-5K worth of detail.  Typically we scan it in at 6K and over sample to down sample to yield better quality results.  At 6K resolution Super 35mm film's grain is globular and larger than a pixel.  It isn't exactly sharp, but it's rather smooth.  Most higher end digital cinema cameras that are using Bayer Pattern sensor tech are somewhat emulating that effect to a degree.  When we get to larger film formats like VistaVision 8-perf, 65mm 5-perf, and 70mm IMAX 15-perf the resolution increases based on the negative size.  If you've seen a full optical release of a properly shot IMAX film, it's still a tremendous visual treat.
 
@Mattias Burling - Much of what I'm after with my images is due to my film background.  I'd say not until fairly recently, like around 2013 did we actually get into the true potential of digital film alternatives when it comes to motion picture production.  Film still has that magical quality to it that's something hard to truly define, but at this point there's certainly quality alternatives for those who choose the crazy world of digital capture.  And it's a very controlled yet flexible format at that.  Much of my earlier work before RED hit the scene and even before the PV Genesis was making digital cameras look more like film.  Adding grain was one aspect of that, but I'll tell you 10+ years ago it was much harder to do than with today's cameras.  Especially if you are using high resolution scans of actual film grain.
 
@Goose - Thank you.  Seems like 20000 people like it and about 3 don't so far   But boy do those negative comments sting.
 
@AaronChicago - Guardians of the Galaxy Vol.2 has already begun filming on the first batch of 8K Weapons and it's going to be interesting to see how that translates to VFX and post workflow for sure.  I think they are aiming for a 4K finish if I'm not mistaken.  The standard in 2020 will still be mostly 4K, but 8K broadcast trials start this year and in 2020 NHK is hoping to broadcast the Olympics in 8K "somewhere".  As for the next 10-15 years, yep, a lot of UHD 4K with a growing trend of 8K for productions that are looking to explore that world.  HDR is going to be the next big thing that comes home it seems.
 
@richg101 - You hit the nail on the head when it comes to glass Richard.  That's the main reason I went with the Otus primes.  However!  I did also use a few several decades old Olympus OM lenses in there as well as a Leica-R and Canon 200mm (so I didn't set myself on fire).  I have a feeling the Otus trio will be something I'll be shooting a lot of content with on the 8K.  And much of this was f/2, with a few f/1.4-f/2.8 shots in there.  There's something truly seductive about this format size and focusing on nuanced detail in my opinion.
@Dan Wake - That flicker doesn't show in my ProRes masters here.  It appears it's a YouTube encoding artifact.  Had to watch both a few times to make sure I wasn't crazy.  Seems to be minimized when watching full screen on a 4K display, but it's certainly weird.
 
 

Un-foogin-believable.

The rendering of the smoke was like nothing I've seen before - looked like it was going to come right out of my screen.

This 8k thing is a whole new world for Documentaries, educational, and other types of super-realism stuff.

But I'm becoming more convinced than ever that 4k is the cutoff for "Movies". It's just too sharp and it starts hurting the feel of the experience instead of helping.
In fact the 2.8k Alexa or even the 2.5k Blackmagic Cinema Camera are about all I'd want to deal with if the intention is something that "looks like a movie".

But it's interesting - we now have cameras so advanced that they are creating new genres. That's fantastic.
And the ability of 5k, 6k, and 8k to convey a realistic experience is a gift to Humanity. As a teaching and world-sharing tool there has never been anything like it before. 

There is very much a parallel in Music recording. - Audio technology has advanced just like video technology has, but when the audio you want to make is MUSIC then the new advanced tech sounds 'worse' and everybody reaches for "tube this" and "tube that" and "tube emulators"... all that DEGRADES the audio - but it does it in a very specific way that just so happens to sound "better" to most people in the context of songs. 
So "movie" cameras will be the ones that render a technically less advanced image - but one that is far more suited to the particular application of creating a "movie".

Interesting times.

Don, check the f5/55 forums. Sounds like you may have read a portion of the14 pages worth on DVXuser. Also Photozone, and  individual blog posts as well. The claim is not unsubstantiated.  I should still have my lens test files, but unfortunately wont be returning home until mid April. (a likely story right ) However, the lenses  (24-70ii 70-200ii, 50 Xenon FF) are adapted like I would imagine the vast majority of emount Sony's being used for video are.  
Grim,  I mentioned that Sony's seem to "exacerbate" ca for whatever reason. "Amplify" in the way you've used it was not my intent. Thanks for the aberration 101!
Again, I totally agree lens/adapter and have never stated otherwise. For whatever reason Sony cams just seem to make fringing even more apparent.  Any one find multiple threads/posts/blogs about abnormal fringing from Panasonic users? Red?  Black magic? Nikon?   
 
 
When we've countered, hypothesized, and explained away all of these posts from users on other forums who are obviously much less educated and experienced than our Wikipedia copying selves,  we can go back to our ignorant bliss, admiring our sleek consumer cams collecting dust, dreaming all the while about custom Alexa luts. and how amazing our video will look to the 47 Vimeo users who stumble across it while searching for porn. 

Severe chromatic aberration in every pic.  

Congrats on the Vimeo staff pick. Your work looks amazing.    I posted the link to your short earlier in one of Ed's posts (probably not the best place), but I was curious if Ed had seen it.  (bought the F35 myself thanks to you and Ed.)

Thanks for giving the lut/grading info you had.   I have yet to see any films shot on digital cameras replicate the look from some of the classic mid 80's to late 90's films.  Extremely smooth highlights, pinkish Caucasian skintones, neutral, well lit look with natural looking saturated colors, plenty of detail/texture, yet soft/smooth, with beautiful grain to top it off. 
  Also, have you watched your cult leaders new release?
 

New short film from Macgregor shot on Sony F35 is simply mouthwatering. I dare to say that I haven't seen anything better imagewise in digital camera world, but I have to admit that great grading also helps in this case.
 

Haha, I was just kidding, but it sure sounds like the holidays with my family. 

I've been looking around the internets, but can't seem to track down all these full frame, industry leading stills cameras, that also shoot 4K/60fps (4:2:2, high bitrate).. being sold by Sony, Panasonic etc for $1000. Can you share the links?
I also think it's a bit shameful that in early 2016 we can buy for around $100 some phones/cameras from "insert Chinese brand" that record 4K video, but are being asked to pay a minimum of $1,000 for the same thing from sony and Panasonic... Because that is 100% how the real world works, especially comparing apples to oranges.
God only knows the shame that Arri must feel about their prices... Not even 4K lolz

I agree with Andrew's points. I've been thinking about writing about my experience of going from an A7s to 1DC and then back to the A7rii actually. It's been a slightly confusing but very illuminating journey in the development of my skills and tastes.
In my experience I'm yet to find a 'bulletproof' consistent workflow for s-log. It's maddeningly different depending on the light and color temperature. Having said that I haven't used S-log3, just S-log2.
If you're running and gunning then I'm not sure s-log is ever going to be easy.
But I am finding the Sony (with the right post work) to produce a more modern look, if that's what you're after. By modern I mean more on trend with adverts and music videos thesedays, but not necessarily a 'better' image per se.

Think this era in mass media will be known as the BS "listicle" trash era?
I do wonder if culture will grow out of the nonsense and the tone of this junk will sound as ridiculous in a generation or two as dialog from 1930's movies.  
Then again, as conditioned consumers, we're trained to believe that the choices we make in purchases somehow represent our success in life.  What better way to justify one's self worth than to find like minded opinion as a way to say "See, I knew I was right!  I'm smarter than everyone else!"?  Listicles give people that affirmation.  Perhaps they'll never go away.  Tabloids have been selling for centuries after all.
Criticism of this guy is somewhat ironic to me since there's over a dozen pages of comments in the a6300 thread... Oh well, that's my stream of consciousness pop psycology anyway.

just remove the plastic guard.  I've put the Canon 17-55is on my 1DC.

use ppros media browser to open dng folders one at a time. (instead of import) 
 or Use this method to import multiple dng  folders:  click import, browse to the folder containing dng folders >  type 00000 into the search box > select the clips you want and import.  
I would use AE, ACR, PS, or Resolve (easiest imo). Ppro supposedly is basically letting you view the file to edit, but you give up the advantages of shooting raw in the first place. (at least with CD dng's).
The fs700 needs firmware 3.01 for 4k.  I don't believe the 7q or 7q+  needs the CD raw upgrade for up to 4k 30p prores, but does for raw or any Cd raw to prores variation for the fs700. 
bulky is an apt description, but the fs700 is actually about 2oz. lighter than 1dxii and can be easier to shoot with depending on the environment. (not including 7q of course, but if nds, mattebox, and monitor are needed for the 1dxii, weight is again comparable) 
The fs700 +7q files (both raw and prores) are very malleable.  I think someone who likes ml raw will be satisfied with the 4k raw of the fs700. 
 
 
 
*my perspective comes from currently owning fs700,1dc,F35,7d
 

 

use ppros media browser to open dng folders one at a time. (instead of import) 
 or Use this method to import multiple dng  folders:  click import, browse to the folder containing dng folders >  type 00000 into the search box > select the clips you want and import.  
I would use AE, ACR, PS, or Resolve (easiest imo). Ppro supposedly is basically letting you view the file to edit, but you give up the advantages of shooting raw in the first place. (at least with CD dng's).
The fs700 needs firmware 3.01 for 4k.  I don't believe the 7q or 7q+  needs the CD raw upgrade for up to 4k 30p prores, but does for raw or any Cd raw to prores variation for the fs700. 
bulky is an apt description, but the fs700 is actually about 2oz. lighter than 1dxii and can be easier to shoot with depending on the environment. (not including 7q of course, but if nds, mattebox, and monitor are needed for the 1dxii, weight is again comparable) 
The fs700 +7q files (both raw and prores) are very malleable.  I think someone who likes ml raw will be satisfied with the 4k raw of the fs700. 
 
 
 
*my perspective comes from currently owning fs700,1dc,F35,7d
 

 

Making your struggle even more difficult: Tiffen has software that simulates most, if not all, of their filters in a plugin. 

The Trump lens series is a perfect match for the F35, right down to the black and gold!
I wanted to get a general idea of the look from the Trump series of lenses  in a simple natural daylight setting without flaring. Realize there are a million variables, attributes, characteristics, mechanics, etc... The optical characteristics the Trump lenses are most famous for (wide open low contrast, flaring, custom bokeh) are not shown here.
Camera settings:  1DC      iso 400, roughly 180 degree shutter, standard profile, daylight wb, 4k 8bit 422 (log is my preference, but wanted to use a profile all Canon cameras have in common so it would be easier to see the lenses characteristics without a custom grade getting in the way)   
                              F35      cine ei mode, adjusted exposure slightly in Resolve, slog, sgamut, 180 degree shutter, daylight wb., 1920x1080 12bit 444 dpx, upscaled to uhd (for easier comparison to the 1dc files) keep in mind the scaling probably doesn't do the F35 any favors.
Apertures:             T3.1 very roughly for the Canon and Trump, T3.9 on the Cooke
I used latest version of Adobe media encoder to export tiffs with best settings possible.  I delogged the F35 footage in Resolve with Sony's  F35 Aces input transform with an srgb output. Captured stills and exported as tiffs from Resolve 12.
Below are low res jpegs.  Srgb Tiffs to download here :https://drive.google.com/folderview?id=0B6dC48Sfvqr4c3k1aVh4UkhBS2M&usp=sharing
 
 

The Trump lens series is a perfect match for the F35, right down to the black and gold!
I wanted to get a general idea of the look from the Trump series of lenses  in a simple natural daylight setting without flaring. Realize there are a million variables, attributes, characteristics, mechanics, etc... The optical characteristics the Trump lenses are most famous for (wide open low contrast, flaring, custom bokeh) are not shown here.
Camera settings:  1DC      iso 400, roughly 180 degree shutter, standard profile, daylight wb, 4k 8bit 422 (log is my preference, but wanted to use a profile all Canon cameras have in common so it would be easier to see the lenses characteristics without a custom grade getting in the way)   
                              F35      cine ei mode, adjusted exposure slightly in Resolve, slog, sgamut, 180 degree shutter, daylight wb., 1920x1080 12bit 444 dpx, upscaled to uhd (for easier comparison to the 1dc files) keep in mind the scaling probably doesn't do the F35 any favors.
Apertures:             T3.1 very roughly for the Canon and Trump, T3.9 on the Cooke
I used latest version of Adobe media encoder to export tiffs with best settings possible.  I delogged the F35 footage in Resolve with Sony's  F35 Aces input transform with an srgb output. Captured stills and exported as tiffs from Resolve 12.
Below are low res jpegs.  Srgb Tiffs to download here :https://drive.google.com/folderview?id=0B6dC48Sfvqr4c3k1aVh4UkhBS2M&usp=sharing
 
 

This is a test of underexposing the Red One MX and pushing it in post. And some footage from the 100fps Over Crank Slowmotion.

Today it was really cold (-20ºC/-4ºF). Therefor I stayed inside and played with the R1MX.
Firstly I finally read the manual and learned the different exposure and focus aids that are available in the EVF and viewfinder.
And there was a lot of them. 
While calibrating my Zebra settings to show the same as one of the false color modes I got a bit curious about underexposure and did a series of tests.
The conclusion I drew was that the Red Raw is very pushable.
Like all cameras it introduces noise when starved from light, but the noise isn't to shabby looking.
Its nice to see that even the darkest one, f22, can be used in documentary purposes. Meaning you can shoot something and show what it looks like. We are not not talking about looking pretty, just identifying an object.
The frames
All of them are shot at ISO 800 with a Nikon 35-70mm f2.8.
The cameras is at its highest compression, in other words, its worst image in 4.5K.
In the camera the Zebras are set to indicate over exposure and shadows that are at risk to be to noisy.
The frames have first been exported in their default Red Gamma 3.
Then I have used the f2.8 as bench mark and pushed all the others to match its lift, gama and gain.
(sorry about the photos of the monitor, smartphone.)
f2.8
Here I had Zebras indicating clipping on the table next above the remote.
The stop light indicates that its a red channel clip. Meter is also on red.

Straight from camera.

Balanced.

f4
No Zebras for clipping nor underexposure.

Straight from camera.

Balanced

f5.6
No Zebras but exposed to the left.

Straight from camera.

Obviously I slipped in and made the red channel blow, but Im to lazy to redo it

f8
Starting to get dark.

Still sharp and not to noisy.

Colors back to normal.

f11
Some Zebras warning for under exposure on the remote and parts of the blanket.

Straight from camera.

Some noise but under control.

f16
Night time.

This might get noisy.

Should clean up in a pinch.

f22
Green Zebras all over the place.

Yeah right....

Still usable in documentary situation where the goal is to identify and not to look pretty. 

Slowmo
So for reading through that boring stuff, here is some slow of birds
 

I went to see the 3 hour  roadshow version at one of the locations in Florida with the custom 70mm projectors installed.
 The attributes of film were magical and did not dissapoint. In my opinion it kicks the best digital has to offer to the curb. The overture and intermission were also a classy throwback, but........in spite of the amazing format and talent, the whole thing left me empty and uninspired.   Extremely long drawn out takes seemingly unnecessary to the story.  Stage like lighting. Unmotivated to the scene nuclear highlights (table tops inside cabin).  Racial themes that left one wondering whether Tarantino intended for the audience to laugh uneasily or have empathy for the characters.  
At the very least I expect to be mildly entertained and at best to gain insight or a perspective from another's point of view.  
It's like experiencing the most expensive meal on the menu and then after digesting it, realize a simple homemade meal is far more tasteful and satisfying.  
 

I went to see the 3 hour  roadshow version at one of the locations in Florida with the custom 70mm projectors installed.
 The attributes of film were magical and did not dissapoint. In my opinion it kicks the best digital has to offer to the curb. The overture and intermission were also a classy throwback, but........in spite of the amazing format and talent, the whole thing left me empty and uninspired.   Extremely long drawn out takes seemingly unnecessary to the story.  Stage like lighting. Unmotivated to the scene nuclear highlights (table tops inside cabin).  Racial themes that left one wondering whether Tarantino intended for the audience to laugh uneasily or have empathy for the characters.  
At the very least I expect to be mildly entertained and at best to gain insight or a perspective from another's point of view.  
It's like experiencing the most expensive meal on the menu and then after digesting it, realize a simple homemade meal is far more tasteful and satisfying.  
 

Not sure if you mean fs7 or fs5, but, since you mention raw output: On another thread in another forum there is a discussion about Sonys implementation of 12 bit raw from the fs700 and the fs7.  Mitch from cd, Alistair Chapman,  and some others in the industry weigh in. In short, it appears that unlike the fs700, the raw from the fs7 is worse quality than the internal video.  Not sure how the raw of the fs5 will be implemented, but in the case of the fs7 it is at best questionable.

Disclaimer: This is just for fun. Not meant to be fair, well lit, perfectly graded, scientific or anything else. Just a few shots while I had the two film cameras loaded.
IMO Film still kicks the ass of digital in looking what I consider "Good" and in dynamic range and color. But this is not suposed to be proof of that concept.
If you want an example of that I say watch "The Hateful Eight", "The Hurtlocker" or any other well shot movie on film.
In this video I compare some footage from a BMPCC, Digital Bolex and A7ii to a 16mm Bolex H16 and a Krasnogorsk-3.
I did it just for fun so don't read to much into it
The BMPCC was shot in Prores and the D16 in Raw. Both where graded with a 7207 LUT.
The H16 was shooting actual ISO 250 Kodak 7207.
The Krasnogorsk was shooting ISO 50 Kodak 7203 so thats the LUT the A7ii received.
 

Ed, have you tried the Aces workflow in Resolve for the F35 or other cameras with an available IDT (sgamut to aces and slog to linear) and if so, what was your opinion? 
http://www.filmscientist.com/blog/2015/01/29/film-scientist-aces-workflow-revisited/

Hey all,
Just shot/edited my first piece. I'm coming from a radio producer/documentarian background and have produced some stuff for television, but this is the first thing I've shot and edited myself.
It was done strictly as a learning exercise. I've dabbling in video in my spare time (which has been scarce and so painstakingly slow) for about 5 years now and have learned a lot on these boards. I definitely appreciate the information and experiences shared here and would greatly appreciate any constructive criticisms and advice.
Password: Malvern
I did basic color correction as I'm just beginning to learn how to grade, and honestly thought it looked decent until it got uploaded to vimeo. So any vimeo tips would be appreciated as well. 
Here's a run down of the stuff I used:
Camera: 5D MKII (ML Raw)
Lens: Canon 28mm F/2.8, Canon 100mm F/2.8 L, Canon 80-200mm F/2.8 L
Audio: Sennheiser G3, Marantz PMD661
Lights: F&V R-300, Lowel Rifa Ex-88
Conversion: MLVMystic
Edit/Basic Color Correction: Da Vinci Resolve 11 Lite
Export: ProRes 422 HQ (resized to HD 1920x1080) 
Password: Malvern
<iframe src="https://player.vimeo.com/video/145473746" width="500" height="281" frameborder="0" webkitallowfullscreen mozallowfullscreen allowfullscreen></iframe> <p><a href="https://vimeo.com/145473746">People I Know - Kevin Jones (No Grade)</a> from <a href="https://vimeo.com/tyharper">Ty Harper</a> on <a href="https://vimeo.com">Vimeo</a>.</p>
 

haha! rich posted two pics of the lens he's building for me on instagram today! dying here. can't wait to get my paws on it. the finish looks rad!