TheRenaissanceMan

Andrew, it'd be nice to see these shootouts done with both internal and external recording. Those of us who use external recorders would like to know how much of this is sensor and processing and how much is compression.

That 20MP sensor has a lot more latitude in the shadows than the highlights, so it actually responds fairly well to underexposing (to avoid blown highlights) and bringing it up in post. This is a lot like the D800e, which also has a lot of dynamic range in the shadows. This can be nice for recovering botched exposures, but it requires a fair bit of tonal work to get it looking natural. Also, all that shadow DR on a small sensor means that once you get to ISO 1600 or so, you're losing a ton of that to noise. 

The newer M4/3 sensors, on the other hand, have a much more pleasing, well-balanced DR distribution. They do pretty well in the highlights with a very nice roll off, but can also be recovered quite well (at low ISOs). I prefer this, because there's less I need to do to make it look good out of the camera. Plus, in low light, I can crush the blacks a little and still have that nice dynamic range in the highlights to keep things looking realistic. 

I've been shooting the GH3 and the RX10 side by side for a few months now, so I have a ton of experience trying to get them to match well in post. They require VERY different treatment to look their best. Both are quite capable, but if I had to choose, I'd stick with M4/3 in a heartbeat. 

EDIT: This is all in regards to stills. For video, my findings are similar, which puts the RX10 (even with the XAVC-S codec update) at a distinct disadvantage, because all that shadow DR is heavily compressed and doesn't always respond well to being raised. Compounding the issue is that the most accurate Sony Picture Profile (Deep) is very contrasty and crushes the blacks. Portrait is probably the second best, but it's so oversaturated you can easily clip a color channel, even at -3 saturation. The GH3 in Natural or Standard blows it out of the water for out of the box color and ease of CC/grading. The only points I'd put in the RX10's favor are that lens (an amazing piece of engineering) and the internal ND.

Definitely a little flat in the skintones, luma-wise. It needs a little more contrast in post or the internal profile dropped to -2. Tests show that cranking the contrast lower than that just flattens the image without providing any extra DR. 

I don't know if people just don't test their cameras these days or what, but...Natural IS one of the normal profiles. Just because one of them has "Cine" in the name doesn't mean you have to use it. Natural for low-contrast and Standard for high-contrast have been my go-to GH3 profiles for years and provide excellent results in all kinds of shooting environments. All this "bad GH4 colors" and "lousy skintones" nonsense is 100% operator error. Glad to see people are finally digging into the camera properly.

Probably not, because the RX10 uses Long-GOP compression and the XC10 uses Intra-Frame.

Has anyone used the SLR Magic 10mm and the 12mm? I have the opportunity to get one or the other--the 12 for $350, the 10 for $450. I'm not sure which one to go for. I currently have the SLR Magic 25mm and plan to get either the 35mm f/1.4 or the 50mm f/0.95 next.

For context, I shoot mostly narrative, occasionally foraying into music videos and events. I want a wide angle for wide vistas, deep space compositions, and moving/steadicam shots. I have a BMPCC and plan to pick up a GH4 or G7 in the next month or so. I don't mind distortion (in fact, I kind of prefer a little) and I don't care if the 12 is soft at t/1.6 if it sharpens up by t/2. 

How, in your experience, do the two compare in those situations? Thanks in advance!

Or maybe they just like their products? 

Seriously, why are people acting like BM cameras are so unstable? They have some quirks, but as sensors in boxes, they deliver. Not to mention that they have led the charge on providing features via firmware--features which were never promised and they had no obligation to provide. They don't crash like Magic Lantern, the more aggressive GH2 hacks, or even the newer RED cameras. And overheating? Their cameras have some of the best internal cooling of any camera out there. 

In terms of low-light, I'm not sure why people have so much trouble. I can easily push the BMPCC two stops (to 3200) without objectionable noise, and the Ursa Mini is reported to have a stop more latitude in the lows. Combine that with a downsample to 2K from 4.6K and you should be able to get a decent 6400 out of it. If you need more than ISO 6400 and an F/2 lens, your light probably sucks anyway.

I laughed HARD. What does that even mean!? 

That's why a lot of us would like companies like Samsung or Panasonic to start offering an internal 10-bit option. Then we wouldn't have to choose!  As it is, all these micro HDMI options are just a stopgap solution.

You're my favorite.

For what camera? 

As long as we're testing, I'd also love to see someone with an external recorder take a 10-bit capable camera like the GH4 or BMPCC and record the uncompressed out in both 8 bit and 10 bit. This theoretical stuff with RAW frames is interesting, but those conditions are where I see big differences in rendering. 

For example, this video was pretty eye-opening to me. It's a LUT that attempts to imitate Dragon color on the GH4, and you can clearly see in the examples how much more natural the image is from the 10-bit HDMI after the Dragon LUT and standard grading are applied. It's a drastic difference. In many cases, the color palette is completely different between the two, because the 10-bit captures shades the 8-bit can't even see. 

https://vimeo.com/101350338

This gap in aesthetic is night and day different to the gap between compressed and uncompressed 8-bit from the Nikon D5300, for example. 

And quick question. If your main argument against 10-bit is that the larger file sizes aren't worth it, how can you argue for the 1DC shooting 500 mbps files? Even Prores HQ, a 10-bit 4:2:2 codec, is only 220 mbps, and most people could shoot LT without noticing any degradation. Panasonic's 10-bit 4:2:2 AVC-Ultra codec is even more efficient at half the size in 1080p and almost a third the size in 4K. How does it look? You tell me. 

https://vimeo.com/105522587

 Can you post any article or white paper about that last bit? I had no idea H.264 affected tonal precision that much.

I disagree with almost all of that, but you're also getting off topic. This is about which manufacturer we think will implement internal 10-bit, not whether we think 10-bit footage is a meaningful gain over 8-bit. If you want to discuss that, I suggest making a new topic. 

See, now that's a valid argument. I was really excited when BM gave the BMCC compressed CinemaDNG in firmware, because the increase in quality is huge, the filesize isn't that different, and the workflow is already built into Davinci Resolve. 

It makes me wonder why Cineform isn't more widespread. 

Uh...yeah. Because they're both 8-bit. That was kinda in my description. 

The science is pretty well-known to serious video shooters, so I think the burden of proof is on you to show the uselessness of 10-bit. 

Back on topic...I think Samsung seems the most likely. Ambitious and without a professional line to protect. 

The GH4 already does 10-bit, albeit through the HDMI port. Does anyone know if the DVX200 does too? If so, I don't think an internal 10-bit codec in the GH5 would kill it.

Sweet dreams. Tomorrow, try running a google search or two and making your own assessments.

I notice a large difference in quality between the GH4's 8-bit and 10-bit output, even on my 8-bit monitor. Maybe nail down my opinion before you attempt to disprove it.
 

I never said the 1DC didn't have a good look in terms of color. But you're forcing everyone to agree with your opinion (and it is an opinion, despite how loud and forcefully you club us with it). If you were showing us carefully shot comparisons with a macbeth/OneShot chart and a vectorscope to demonstrate an actual technical difference or lack thereof, I'd be more willing to see it your way.
 

There's a big difference between 8-bit JPEG processing and 8-bit video processing. Except in the 1DC's case, which is why part of why it has such a great image.
 

No, I blame it for having less color and tonal information. Which is a fact. And I enjoy the aesthetic more. Which is my personal preference. So maybe slow down on the coffee.
 

None of the camera manufacturers we're talking about are using line-skipping anymore except for slow motion and the NX1's 1080p mode, so this point is completely irrelevant. 
 

Where is that test and how was it performed? What monitor were you viewing it on? Did you blow it up on a projector to see how it scales? How intense was your grade? 

I get disagreement on what's important, but you're just bullying us with your opinion at this point. 

About liking 10-bit footage? How exactly does that work? "You know that thing you like? Well, you don't. Stop it!" 

And again, it's so funny that you cry out for LOG profiles meant to imitate higher bit depth and write articles about a 4:2:2 camera's color superiority over a 4:2:0 one, then come out and argue tooth and nail that higher bit and color depth is bunk. 

I'd take the Pocket camera all day. There's no "correct" in aesthetics, Andrew. Only preference. And some of us prefer the look of larger bit depth. Why are you trying so hard to tell us we're wrong?

People not knowing how to hit "buy" on a set of LUTs? Or, on the higher end, not hiring a colorist?

Where are you reading "full frame" in the title "who will break the internal 10-bit hybrid barrier"? Or are you demonstrating your impressive ability to remember sensor sizes? 

Panasonic can do it but Sony can't? Because...?

I'm sorry, have you SEEN the heatsink on the URSA and URSA Mini? Heat is NOT a problem.

What's stopping them from making a bigger body, ala the GH4 and NX1? Besides losing what little size advantage FF mirrorless has over DSLRs?