TheRenaissanceMan

Here's the response from Werner, 
"I put a look on the skintone because we are trying to make the thing naturalized - and we can't if its flat - if I show you the raw image - then you have to do the work. So we are trying to save your time.  Which is very, very valuable.  I am sorry that me and my team did a bad job on the skin tones and that they look too Hollywood - we will try better next time if we don't all die very quickly by accident by a comet or something just as random as that, like getting hit by a stray bullet."

Yeesh, seems like a lot of folks been removing their sense of humour along with their moire.

​Of course they havent, why would they?  
Just watched it. And I thought it was fun.

https://vimeo.com/128428344
Thanks Werner for coming by!
better skin tones below:
 
 

This is my favorite thread.

1. Because it looks better.
2. Because it suspends your disbelief. 
3. Dreamy is a form of imagination.
4. Imagination can create great art. 
5. Tell A DJ that vinyls are history. Now tell a filmmaker the same thing about 24p. 
6. Just my opinion. 

I came here to read about Nikon raw and end up questioning about forum policy.
Honestly I like this forum but calling someone an IDIOT because he said that the topic title is misguiding is simply offensive.

No they really shouldn't. A lens does not "resolve 6MP".
A lens renders a certain spatial frequency at a certain contrast ratio. It might take detail at 20 line pairs per millimeter and produce 70% contrast, detail at 50 line pairs per millimeter results in 30% contrast etc. This relationship is captured by the modulation transfer function (MTF), a quantity which varies according to the distance from the image centre, and the direction you measure in (sagital vs tangential). Manufacturers already publish MTF charts for their lenses, which is the equivalent of what you're suggesting, only much more meaningful. There are some differences in how these charts are computed (e.g. whether diffraction is included or not) so they're not always directly comparable, but they aren't anywhere near as misleading as trying to attach a single "megapixel" rating to lenses.
The other reason stating "this lens resolves 6MP" is meaningless is that the important thing in determining how you images will look is not the lens MTF itself, but the system MTF. The system MTF is the product of MTFs of each part, the lens the filter stack and the sensor (and image processing to an extent). Because it's a mathematical product (a lens delivering 80% contrast combined with an AA filter that delivers 95% contrast results in 76% contrast (0.8 x 0.95 x 100)) you can improve the system MTF by improving the MTF of any component in the system. Hence you "6MP" lens will give you more resolution on a 24MP body than on a 6MP body.
 
It's exactly this thinking that leads people to declare that there's no reason to have a 50MP sensor as there are no 50MP lenses in existence. Even the kit lens in your example produces some contrast in the centre of the image at 50MP.

i think they dont look as good as the colors captured by you, and if you bought them so have other 100 people that will have the exact same look.
i think you should develop your own style, the footage is great, just tweek it a bit and it will have your signature on it.
they look instagramish, and unless there is a serious reason why they should look "green" or highly saturated because of a client or a story i am against luts and color grading.
i guess its my taste,and i am the minority here.
 and as i said your footage and the dog looks awesome.
c.

I don't these Luts at all. Ruining otherwise great footage. Horrible stuff 

Thanks for the tests!
Most of the filters feel kinda Instagram-like. Including the names Mostly because of the lifted black point I think. Might like it more with proper blacks...

I bought the regular D16 (not the M) since its imo pretty much a bmpcc mkiii (the micro is the mkii) and priced similar to anything Blackmagic if you look at what they charge for specs. 
The way I saw it was bmpcc + SDs for 2h raw + a Tascam DR 100ii + The battery I use for my Blackmagic + a rig to hold it and to help with handheld = $1-1.5k.
Then it's the added Global Shutter which is another $500 if you go micro. Of course then you need a monitor also but let's call it even for the 60fps.
Then there is no more Moire. What that is worth is individual but I would gladly have payed $500 for it in a bmpcc update.
Some other small things like higher resolution, last clip deletion, full size HDMI, off load to CF and such might be worth a little to some. 
And lastly it's the CCD and the look that gives. And this is the whole point actually. Either you want it or you don't. I did and its worth atleast $500 for me.
When I added it all up its imo worth around $2,5-3k. Pretty fare for a cinema camera with those specs if you ask me (I paid 2.3k for the 500gb version and an mft mount is $350 if I decide to get that in the future).
That's atleast how I viewed it. For those that don't I totally understand. We all like different gear and looks.
So if I was buying it for the same reasons but with the intention to shoot B&W only I would of course consider it because of the extra stop of DR it gives.
Ive only seen I think one demo from the M but that looked really good. 
 

Hi everybody, my first comment on this forum, very nice to meet you.
I like Andrew's review for EOS M3, and I find it to the point and I find very useful the videos "Japanese Garden" and the "Studio Test Scene".
Well I am from the first who bought EOS M3 body from Amazon Japan at under $500 with free EVF included.
I already have a Nikon D800 and when I compared it with EOS M3 in movie mode side by side, I was impressed to see that the EOS M3 video is much more clear and full of details than this of D800.
After I liked the freedom that M3 gives me: small size, tilting screen, standard external microphone port, focus peaking that make manual focus quick, and a variety of lenses to choose from Canon, or Nikon, or legacy Pentax, Tamron etc.
You cannot find all these at this price.  Not even an external microphone port unless you go more over $1.000.
I also want to inform other M3 users that if you search the settings in "Picture Style" you will get a movie output much more rich in details: not only remove sharpness but remove contrast as well.
But I was really surprised to see that magnification assist for MF doesn’t work in movie mode, while it offers focus peaking, which is related and has to work together with MF assist. I hope that they fix this, it is crazy: every time i want to fine focus or to check the accuracy of the focus peaking, I have to: rotate the selector from movie to photo mode> fine focus>rotate again the selector to movie mode.
In general am happy with this camera and for this I made a short "Low Light High ISO Movie Test" which i can share with you:
 
 
Chipped and unchipped lenses were used for shooting the samples of this movie, which are:
1. Nikkor 50mm f/1.4 non-Ai (adapter used).
2. Tamron Adaptall-2 SP 60-300mm f/3.8-5.4 (23A).
3. Tokina 12-24mm f/4 AT-X 124AF Pro DX II for Nikon (adapter used).
4. Tamron SP AF 17-50mm f/2.8 XR Di II LD IF for Canon.
And here is a picture of EOS M3 with the lens: Tamron Adaptall-2 SP 60-300mm f/3.8-5.4 (23A).  With this long lens, the first clips of the movie test were shot:

Best Regards!

​I'll give you that, although the 4K mode entails a heavy crop and still needs a transcode. Unlike Andrew, I'm actually a big fan of the NX1/NX500 1080p image. Virtually no rolling shutter and very competitive with the other 1080p cams.
 
 
 

​Because it costs twice as much and requires a lengthy transcode to use the footage?

​You may not be able to quantify the 14 bit color, but you can definitely tell it looks better than a normal 8 bit source.

​Besides 12 bit RAW and 10-bit prores with 13 stops of dynamic range, better rolling shutter, and WAY nicer color?

I completely disagree that the D5300 has a rubbish image. I've seen some amazingly filmic stuff shot on the crop sensor Nikons, and very much appreciate their strong color science, great low light capability, sharp 1080p, and surprisingly good dynamic range/highlight roll off. I would never own one, but that's because I can't put my FD or Minolta glass on it, not because of its video quality.

Very encouraged the EOS M III's improved performance. It's not up to GH2 level--not by a long shot--but it's decent, and features that Canon color science everyone raves about (and I just like for certain projects). My enjoyment of the original hinged mostly on it being a great pocket cam with the 22mm f/2 (an exquisitely good pancake lens) and that it's a Canon sensor I could finally use my glass on. Once we see what can be done with this puppy on proper projects, I'd definitely consider picking one up...or an LX100. :D

Cheers!

Just pointed my A7S + Sigma 18-35mm F1.8 at a plain white wall. Shot in 1080P at 24FPS in full-frame mode.

 

Yeah, I'll do it, give me a minute

This whole discussion goes the way discussions like these tend to go. It starts with a claim like "your $1500 camera is better than the Alexa". Then someone points out that there is more to an image than vertical resolution (that would be me), then folks react claiming rightly that one can produce great work with any camera, especially the GH4. All true, but why wasn't the mentioned "Ida" shot on a GH4 wich also has a 4x3 photo movie mode? That film surely had a great script, director, DP, cast, crew etc. The production company could have paid better wages, donated a significant amount of money to some human rights organisation or bought three dozen GH4 and donated them to aspiring filmmakers. (Should I point out to those who aren't getting it that this is meant ironic?) If EOSHD had been modest and written a subheading like "The GH4 now offers anamorphic shooting to low budget productions". But that would have been less catchy, wouldn't it?

​Besides 12 bit RAW and 10-bit prores with 13 stops of dynamic range, better rolling shutter, and WAY nicer color?

I started creating a tutorial for good skin tones on the A7S- higher priority projects have taken my time. There a many ways to get good skin tones on the A7S- creating custom profiles can help, though stock PP6 can work very well as is. Slog2 gamma with Pro or Cinema also works well. It is possible to get good skin tones with the A7S using Resolve and no LUTs at all: everything from scratch (scopes are indeed helpful). Casey posted some test images shot in Slog2 on dvxuser. Here is the thread: http://www.dvxuser.com/V6/showthread.php?334239-a7s-skin-tones-slog2-vs-pp-off-(shogun-4k) (IIRC, account login required to view images). Here are the stock Slog2+Sgamut images:

Here are my grades (no LUTs- just the basic tools in Resolve):

More blue to separate the foreground actor from the background, also changes the mood:

Casey's PP Off shot:

I prefer graded Slog2+Sgamut vs. PP Off. I use mostly tweaked Slog2 + Pro color and CINE1/CINE2/CINE4 + Pro or Cinema (tweaked).
Casey also created some useful Stock PP7 (Slog2+SGamut) LUTS: http://www.dvxuser.com/V6/showthread.php?334831-a7s-slog2-3d-luts (based on the F65/55 LUTs).

austinchimp, I have the a7s since a couple of months and I am still on a path to get decent skin tones while having accurate colors. Trust me, I tested all those profile guides that I found on the net.
s-log is at the moment no option to me since I want to have ISO 100 and i did not start using ND filters yet. Anyways, you might give those settings a go:
Take PP2 as a base (with default values of course) and change the following:
gamma: cine4
color mode: pro
color phase: +5
 
These settings work amazingly well for me, here is one quick example:

Another very important aspect I found out is setting the white balance manually to appropriate kelvin values. You can look them up using Google if you are not familiar with them. Interestingly, I found myself nearly always using 5600k during daylight circumstances, no matter whether it is shady or bright sun (even with snow!). Only on tungsten light or halogen, I change the white balance to about 3900k and within the above mentioned color profile, i change color phase to +2 (i use PP3 for that to change it more quickly), otherwise the image is very yellowish.
 
You could give those settings a try. I would love to hear from you if it helped a bit since I am sure that this journey is not done yet.

​A7s produces beautiful log images which you can basically color/grade how you choose too. The first step is taking that log image and converting to REC 709, then you color to taste...... From my experience Sony A7s produces amazing colors and grades wonderfully, you just really have to spend some time with it and understand how it works. Here's a before/after picture of an unreleased Music Video (Artist: Gyptian) I worked on. Graded in RESOLVE and Tweaked in FINAL CUT