estarkey7

I'm surprised they made no improvement to the DR (for stills or video). That's 7 years of no DR improvements in this line. Pretty disappointing.  Are people really going to pay that much more just for more MPs?

I bet everyone who picks A for raw also thinks the A7S has great colours.  :P
 
 
That's cheating Max!!!

You're right - it's another trick in the arsenal. Shooting a CU on a 25mm gives a different look to shooting a wide on a 100mm. If you want to be a DP, you should learn what lenses look like and how they react to objects at different distances, and you should also learn how to light. 
Because of cheap camera systems, these days wannabe DPs focus all their time and energy into the camera body that they think looks the best, and pixel peep, where the real focus shuold be on lensing and lighting.
You have ACs and DITs to figure out the specifics of the camera system you choose (though you should know why you're choosing a particular camera system). Some DPs like to be involved in the technical side as well, but it's nowhere near as important as knowing how to lens something, and how to light something.
 
The audience don't know the difference between lenses - and to some extent don't care. However, it is something that does contribute to the way a movie looks, which in turn has an effect on how the audience feels.

I understand what you're saying but using Magic Lantern as an example of what could go wrong with an open source project is probably misplaced. The first thing is that ML does have many problems, but ML is not the problem. The problem is the nature of the project - basically ML is a Hack, not really a development project. But why is that? Because the software/Hardware that they are deloping for is closed and Canon just will not/have not given them an ounce of help. Therefore, they have to reverse engineer everything. Most of what the ML team does is guess work and trial and error to figure out how the software/hardware works. Even so, ML has been wildly successful. So much so that AXIOM had to resort to ML's thriving community to reach their funding goals. They said that much themselves. That's what I call success. Rental houses, pro shooters as well as enthusiasts - if you own a Canon body you probably have ML running on it (Who shoots h.264 anymore?).
 
If you want to use an open source project as an example, then try referencing projects such as Mysql, Mozilla and there are many more!
 
It seems to me that you missed the point completely - the reason for an open source cinema camera is so that you take the guess work out of programming! . . . No guess work, no faulty software. If the hardware fails every now and then, well, Black Magic will probably understand (if you know what I mean) - that's why we have AXIOM!
 
You are right about not many amateurs being able to afford it, but then again if ML was not around you couldn't afford a real cinema camera that shoots 14-bit RAW anyways. BTW, who's to say they will not make a sub-$1,000 camera - in fact I'd be willing to bet that's in the works.

Very interesting. The announcement was so photos oriented that I missed the anamorphic implications. Almost enough to make me want to deal with the hassle...almost. ;-)
 
I really, really, (really) hope that Panasonic listens in regards to higher quality color output. Be that RAW, or even uncompressed 4:2:2 in a true log format. It's wonderful how the GH4 can record light weight 4K images in camera to SD, but it would be equally wonderful to have the option to record higher quality to an external recorder when warranted.

This was so informative.  Obviously you've done your homework Andrew.   I cannot wait to see some new anamorphic shooting as a result of this!  It's such a beautiful look. 
 
Panasonic has been great about listening to it's users.  They might be up there with the very best, especially when it comes to it's cameras.   

An interesting discussion!
 
I use masses of negative fill and LED too. I also use a C100 in AVCHD most of the time! It's better than most people thing. a 4K sensor doing 1080p, that's a good look...

They are right about dynamic range being important but actually from the perspective of us, i.e. video shooters on far more democratically priced cameras than the Alexa what you want is that full pixel readout the 4K cameras have (GH4, A7S, etc.). Pixel binning and line skipping on 1080p DSLRs damages the image in all sorts of ways. Dynamic range suffers, so does colour.
 
So 4K is not just about a resolution gain for us, it is the gateway out of line skipping hell.
 
Once you appreciate that and get a 4K monitor like the Samsung for $599 I just reviewed you will see how something like the GH4 or A7S has pushed the envelope in all respects for image quality, codec, dynamic range, etc. compared to what we had before from our consumer DSLRs.
 
And if you want 1080p or 2K out of it just downscale in post. I question whether you need to go to all that effort to soften the lens on set to improve skin, I think it can be done in post with a reduction in micro-contrast and some other techniques as well as a final delivery in 1080p on a non-clinical display technology such as a projector.
 
The other argument is interesting, does the higher detail of 4K and HFR 48p kill the illusion of cinema. I think it depends on the subject matter. For documentaries where you want hyper realism it's great. For a costume drama or glossy escapism like Dallas I can see why creatively Rodney Charters has concerns about it. He's completely right to have those concerns, as are the actors. 4K and HFR certainly didn't work for me when I watched The Hobbit. Hated it.
 
But whether creatively it suits your project or not, the fact is 4K is coming fast and is the next standard for us all. Same as 1080p is today. And nobody wants to shoot 480p today do they?
 
People watching movies on mobile phones and tablets need 4K more than they think. At such close viewing distances you really notice.

Just light for a narrower dynamic range.

Isn't the whole argument against Blackmagic that it takes a good colourist to make the footage look good?

I think it's horses for courses really. Blackmagic cameras aren't really suited for run and gun whereas the Panasonic are. They may not have as much dr as the Blackmagics but I've found they have enough to create really nice footage in most conditions. And in the end I think that content matters most, and so usability is key to me.

The problem with the first two (indoor) videos is that you have underexposed by quite a lot. Noise always comes from shadows afterall. It is best to expose for highlights and then underexpose it in post if that's the look you're going for.

Andrew
Very interesting article...just one point you said "Is this the perfect monitor to watch your Gh4 footage on?" and then you never said anything further about that, apart from a little bit about the A7s.
What does the A7s footage look like? What does the GH4 footage look like?
Just in your opinion ..based on viewing on that 4K monitor.
You said its very revealing and you may have to re review some cameras...but not much more about that?
A positive and negative review of the current crop of 4K DSLR's on a 4K monitor would be great...avoiding the stuff we already know...like ISO performance...RS etc...
just the detail, colors etc of those 4K cams.....how they hold up,  and a comparison of current 1080p DSLR's on that monitor as compared to the A7s and GH4 would be very interesting as well.
There are no other articles about this as far as I know, and I am sure a lot of us would be very interested in the results.
Thanks for the article...
Cheers :)

You light within the dynamic range of your medium. I think lots of people get lighting confused with exposure. They are related only by lux/lumens. Just because you can get the proper exposure doesn't mean your talent will look their best or the mood is right.

This where the differentiation between documentary and creative filmmaking are most evident: Documentary captures what is there in an accurate manner to represent truth. Creative throws truth out the window to immerse in the fantasy.

Do you think the film emulsion of Citizen Kane had fifteen stops? I don't know either ;), but they still consider it one it'd the best films of all time.

Of course it will make it easier if a cam did ISO 500,000 with 15 stops smooth as glass, but until then we can use fill light and work within a useable 9-10 stops.

Diego, that was nice man, real nice.

Compare Canon's 7d MII sample footage to Samsung's NX1 footage... I don't have a 4k screen, but even at 1080 there is quite a difference.
 

Wow Im sold with thee Samsung.
 
BTW, Canon is slowly becoming an irrelevant company 

I don't wanna be that guy but since the 550D days even with YouTube compression the first samples always provided me the definite impression if something was a game changer or not and I was never wrong. Let me tell you that this camera from that video just sucks. I'm just talking about details. It still has that OLD and SURPASSED DSLR look.

I'm very happy I sold all my Canon equipment and lenses to switch to Panasonic in April.
With G6 I can use old Canon FD lenses, with my Canon 70d I could'nt!
And now, with GH4 I'm really more then happy!

It's all thanks to Andrew, because I started to think to m4/3 after I saw some videos of Berlin! :)

7d MkII?? What we are talkin' about?! ;)

sorry Canon NO EVF= not for me
Panny EVFs are amazing I cannot work without one now
 
- hello Samsung ! now that camera does interest me

There u go....

You should add the Samsung NX-1, this one seems like a kick in Canons Balls... =)

This is the best new camera of 2010!

Maybe on the Mark 4.
 

Just like the previous post from Ben said. Do you have any idea how much time was spent developing your product?

If you feel it's unethical to differentiate products solely based on software, then that means you feel that software has no value. Software is intellectual property that breathes life into the silicon your camera is made up of.

Also look at it this way, do you have any idea how expensive it would be to bring a product to market without the substantial leveraging of previous hardware? The price of the F55 was set at is based off of the quantity of F5 units they hope to sell so they can leverage quantity buying power (+20 points of cream for their troubles).

In other words, if they couldn't make the low end camera off of the high end one, they would have never made the high end one, because there's just not enough buyers to get an ROI.

Companies do this all the time, they just aren't stupid enough to leave the workaround accessible in cleartext!

Just like the previous post from Ben said. Do you have any idea how much time was spent developing your product?

If you feel it's unethical to differentiate products solely based on software, then that means you feel that software has no value. Software is intellectual property that breathes life into the silicon your camera is made up of.

Also look at it this way, do you have any idea how expensive it would be to bring a product to market without the substantial leveraging of previous hardware? The price of the F55 was set at is based off of the quantity of F5 units they hope to sell so they can leverage quantity buying power (+20 points of cream for their troubles).

In other words, if they couldn't make the low end camera off of the high end one, they would have never made the high end one, because there's just not enough buyers to get an ROI.

Companies do this all the time, they just aren't stupid enough to leave the workaround accessible in cleartext!