Jump to content


  • Posts

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Posts posted by Gregormannschaft

  1. 46 minutes ago, Matthew19 said:

    I said the same thing about the 1dxII MJPEG files. 3 Years later I'm shooting weddings on it. It's important to remember that the RAW option will become more viable as time goes on and storage gets cheaper. 

    This is true, but it still requires a sizeable investment over time to buy new drives and media. I find things get cheaper, but sizes go up. The RAWLite out of the C200 is just about manageable to the moment, with 256GB getting you about 30 mins of record time.


    3 hours ago, gt3rs said:

    C200 and 1Dx III have the same price.


    Advantage of the C200:

    Internal ND filter

    Proper audio with XLR

    Exposure helps like waveforms

    EVF etc


    Advantage of the 1Dx III:

    Can take picture, actually this is the main goal of this camera.

    FF vs. S35

    5.5k RAW vs. 4k RAW

    FF FHD 120fps with DPAF vs crop and no AF etc


    This is nicely broken down. I purchased a second hand (never used) C200 from a production house 2 years back for just over 5k euros which was a great deal at the time. So if you buy second hand you can easily get cheaper prices.

    I'm not entirely sure why you'd want the 1DXIII if you're doing both video and photo. It offers the extreme best of both world, but do many jobs really require you to be shooting 5K Raw and using a top of the line professional photo camera? I guess the middle broadcast codec is a great thing to have for some photojournalists out there and the more I think about it the more I think that's who will really end up buying and using this camera to its full ability.

    The rest of us probably specialise on one side or the other. Doing only video, once you have internal NDs and built in XLR audio it's very hard to go back.

  2. The specs are really nice, but 13 minutes or so on a 256GB card is crazy. It's nice to have the option and it's great there's a ton of codec options in there but that's a serious cinema camera bitrate for serious productions. Maybe it'll be used as a B or crash cam on some bigger productions.

    I'm not entirely sure who this is for to be honest. It's a couple more grand more expensive than the C200 I bought a couple of years ago. My hopes for a middle codec have completely disappeared, but I can't see myself seriously requiring more than the Canon RawLite format. Once you start shooting in these really nice, thick codecs it quickly shows up other areas of your production that could be improved like lenses, lighting and sound. I'd argue that if you have a camera that can shoot decent RAW and you like shooting with it, there will be no real reason to upgrade for a long time. 

    It's going to be too big for a lot of shooters used to mirrorless, and it's too expensive to be used as a B cam. I'm currently using the BMPCC4K as my B cam and gimbal cam and it pairs really well with the C200. You would have to have a very particular use case to warrant splashing out on the 1DXIII as a B cam.

    Serious hybrid photographers maybe?

  3. 2 hours ago, zerocool22 said:

    Even the light dome is too small for really soft light, well depends offcourse on what the subject is and how close you can move it in.  

    This is true, but I'm a big fan of the Light Dome for documentary lighting. I use it a lot in corporate spaces, and it means I can change locations and really quickly and easily. I use a light wand as a hair light, and a small LED as a fill (if needed, I prefer to get as much contrast as possible usually).

  4. 10 hours ago, Tito Ferradans said:

    I have lots of experience with both J9 and C/Y 85/1.4.

    The Jupiter is a big hit and miss, like most Soviet M42 lenses. If you get a good copy, you'll have tons of character, easy flares, lots of bloom and sharp results wide open. Not a contrasty lens unless stopped down. Getting a good copy is a tough process though. You can go through a dozen of them before finding one you like. I certainly have.

    Contax: the 1.4's are all fring-y, chromatic aberration-y wide open. The 35 is the best performing wide open of the trio. The 50 is notoriously bad wide open (think blooming and intense CA). The 85 has no blooming and CA is mostly controlled, at least in my copy. But good luck getting a close up in focus if everything is not bolted down. hahahaah

    Here's some more info on my set and the decisions through building it - https://***URL not allowed***/zeiss-contax-cine-tune-up-guide/

    This is exactly what I was after, thanks so much. I actually found a good deal on the 50 1.4 and it has a lovely clean look from f2.4 and above, below the sharpness really takes a hit.

  5. Thinking about selling my A7SII and buying the 4K BMPCC. Does anyone have any experience with using this on a gimbal? Is it a hassle to balance? 

    I currently run the A7SII as a B-CAM for my C200, but the slow mo quality is really getting to the point where it sticks out like a sore thumb. I run it nice and light with manual focus lenses on the Zhiyun Crane v2, so I'd be looking to upgrade both the camera and the gimbal.

  6. 5 hours ago, kye said:

    I can't speak to the CZ lenses, but the general principle is that a lens sharpens up when you stop down the first 2-3 stops, which is one of the reasons to get the fastest lenses you can.  Even the five-figure lenses in the cine lens thread still have minor CA and fringing when wide open..  

    Interesting....  8K is pretty high resolution to claim.

    You're certainly right, but the level of fringing is a bit mad. Still, some of the footage looks great, will just avoid shooting wide open in the future.

  7. On 11/12/2019 at 10:16 AM, kye said:

    @Matt Kieley nice images and cool story.. Glad it turned out well and you have a cool set of lenses.

    I still have a 13mm D-mount lens that is waiting to get Frankensteined onto an action camera.. I'm really looking forward to seeing the results.

    @Cinegain cool stuff. VLFV is a cool acronym, I like it.

    I've just taken delivery of a 1000W halogen light so am almost setup to do some lens tests with the various Russian lenses I have.  I think people will be surprised at how well they perform, assuming they're not already familiar with them.

    I was going to buy the Jupiter 9 a while back but decided against it. Now looking at getting a slightly cleaner set of lenses with a 35 1.4, 50 1.4 and 85 1.4 set of Contax Zeiss Planar. Anyone have any experience with these?

    I used the 85 1.4 ZE lens (which is said to be the same lens as the Contax 85mm rehoused in a modern body) recently on a shoot and was surprised at how much purple fringing there was wide open. Other than that it was nice and clean and relatively contrasty. Not a lot of vintage character but a nice lens.

  8. Haven't posted on here in ages but still lurk, just wanted to say you've done an amazing job kaylee. I don't really 'get' the story, but I'm all for films being mood pieces and trying to evoke a particular feeling rather than being as accessible as possible. I'll try not to repeat what others have said on the visuals, but I really really liked what you did with colour. The opening shots of the man on the bus, at work and then on the subway home were stunning. My favourite set of shots has to be the woman travelling on the bus which felt very cinematic.

    I liked the idea with the very dark shots and they'd probably look beautiful in a pitch black room, but I couldn't much on my monitor during the day. I like the idea though, did you underexpose these or did you push the levels down in post?


  9. On 12/20/2018 at 7:21 PM, zerocool22 said:

    Did you test your C200 vs your C300 II? I have only seen older tests without the new firmware upgrade. Offcourse the c200 is codec wise crippled. But what are your thoughts about these 2 camera's. The c200 is newer and cheaper, but the C300 ii has more codec options. But the image from the C200 doesnt seem to look worse then the c300 ii (not sure if I can judge sharpness/colours/image of these youtube video's)

    The C300 Mark II image is certainly superior if you're comparing the C200's 8bit codec vs anything higher on the C300 Mark II. Colour graduation, noise, sharpness are all noticeably better from the C300 Mark II.

    I'd be curious how RawLite holds up in these tests though, I know Ed did a few test videos with it and I'd be interested in why it couldn't get close to the Alexa image.

  10. 23 hours ago, @yan_berthemy_photography said:

    I have 6500 ISO with V-LOG L Installed on my GH4 and GH5 camera and use 1.8 and 2.8 lenses so it's ok.

    Quick tip, buy a bigger ND filter. That way, if you buy lenses with a larger diameter filter thread (77mm or 82mm are common), you wont have to buy another one. You can always buy a step up filter ring for next to nothing, but going down isn't an option.

  11. 1 hour ago, TheRenaissanceMan said:

    Our XF-AVC files were just for review/dailies and the offline edit, so I wanted something that looked nice right out of the camera. Plenty of time to work with LOG gammas when we circle back to the RAW files.

    We had about 6 128gb cards to shuffle between, averaging 4 mins of card space per shot. Did alright on that system, since we were only doing simple coverage that day; once we get into more complex blocking, emotions, and camera movement, I can see storage becoming a concern. Time will tell.

    I'm curious about your Neat Video comment. Are you saying the sensor itself is noisy? Or just that the CRL files don't have much baked in NR?

    To me it looks like there's minimal NR going on with CRL and it's most noticeable in the shadows. I'd be interested to see what you find when you get to looking at your files.

  12. 22 minutes ago, majoraxis said:


    If you are like me - audio noise bothers me to no end.  I am always on the look out for a better audio noise reduction solution.

    Enter IDC - Instant Dialog Cleaner.  It is the best I have found so far for dialogue noise reduction.  It beats Izotope RX6 advanced IMHO.  I have not compared it against RX7 Advanced.  Anyways,  it is worth considering, while it is 50% off until Nov 25th for Black Friday. At $99 it not cheap but much cheaper than RX Advance, which has their dialogue isolate plug-in

    This plug-in is not compatible with Resolve 15.2  as you get distortion ( clicks and pops) when render your video.  They are aware of this issue. They have a compatibly list here:


    Here’s a review with audio examples.  There is no demo.


    Here’ s the product page:


    Happy Thanksgiving!


    Used RX6 noise reduction quite a bit and have been impressed, although when it fails it really stinks. Wish this had a demo version but will keep an eye out in case the devs have a change of heart.

  13. 18 hours ago, TheRenaissanceMan said:

    Because Cinema Raw Light is actually higher quality than the 10-bit XF-AVC from the C300 II, and we didn't need the faster workflow or broadcast features of the latter.

    Really nice shots. Curious why you went with Wide DR? Don't get me wrong, it's great for stuff with a quick turnaround but I wouldn't have thought it would be the go to choice for narrative work.

    We shoot with a bunch of these at work on a very regular basis. The 8bit footage can be made to look great, but the 10bit footage from the C300 mk2 is noticeably better in quality, as it should be. RAW Lite is beautiful though, if you have a good data management system on set (basically just offloading 1 of 3 cards and juggling them) it's very doable to shoot all day. Just prepare to use Neat Video a lot in post.

  14. On 10/26/2018 at 7:53 PM, HockeyFan12 said:

    This book is very old and only covers the very very basics, but I believe it's the most well-established text on the subject, or was when I purchased it:


    It's more a theoretical and aesthetic approach than a technical one. I should dig up my old copy.

    I think on the technical side, the Ripple tutorial is well-regarded. 

    Big thanks for this rec, I've gone ahead and bought the book as a paperback – I find the theoretical side of colour theory just as interesting as the technical side. Ripple was also the first course that I found on a cursory Google search and their free classes have been brilliant so paying for their full course sounds like a good place to get started.

    @capitanazo (your English is great) @kye thanks for taking the time to post,  the LiftGamma forum recommendation looks great, too. No doubt I'll spend a long time lurking but that's often the best way to start learning.  

  15. After years getting passable grading results I've decided I want to really invest a bit of time and money into learning how to properly correct and grade footage. Does anyone here have any recommendations for online resources or courses that have helped them? Most of the free tutorials I can find on YouTube really only start covering the basics and a lot have errors that even I can see are a bit amateur.


  16. 49 minutes ago, Oliver Daniel said:


    Thanks for that. 

    Sonetimes I convince myself I have certain needs, and then when it comes to it, I realise i don’t. 

    Theres many reasons why the GH5 has stuck with me, as I feel it makes room for more thought on creative ideas. I’m being asked to do stills more with video these days, and I’ve used the GH5 again for that. Personally, it’s not my flavour. 

    I do have the EVA1 and I can’t give much of a review on that yet, only used it once! But I had an FS5 before and I sold it as the overall “technological” image wasn’t connecting with me. 

    I love Fuji and Canon images, so I’m always curious. In all honestly if I didn’t need great HFR options, I’d have the C200. They really under delivered on the C300 II, and in my opinion, it’s a flop. Again, they lost me as a customer there too. 

    I usually have to leave my emotional desires aside and have to pick the tools that meet the requirements of my briefs, hence the EVA1 having to come in. So I’m going to settle with these Panasonics and forget about all these distracting new releases. I want the quality of my work to step up further, and this will all be down to hard, focused work. 

    Curious why you think the C300 Mk2 is a flop? I also have a C200 and absolutely love the image, even the 8bit stuff. I know it's been said countless times before but the colour science just makes footage sing. The RawLite footage is beautiful, and will become easier and easier to manage over the next few years as storage prices continue to drop. The AF is incredible and the ergonomics are lovely.

    Buuut, I don't see why the C300 Mk2 would be so much different. It has better codecs, but crippled by poor slow mo options and slightly bulkier ergonomics?

  17. On 9/24/2018 at 1:42 PM, mojo43 said:


    This is lovely. Really like that you tried to weave a personal story into it. Can I ask what your process is like to get those beautiful video portraits of locals? Are you travelling with a native Spanish speaker or a Columbian local?

  18. 10 hours ago, Ed_David said:

    I did a quick skintone and motion test between the two cameras.  Will do a more thorough test tomorrow.

    Let me know thoughts.

    C200 was donated for the test by Friendly Films!


    Great test, Ed. I picked up a C200 a few months back and liked what I saw, except for the noisey shadows. Always liked your grades in the past, curious what your workflow is here with the Canon RAW Lite footage? Do you start off with a base conversion LUT? 

  19. 10 hours ago, ntblowz said:

    Finally get to use one, awesome camera indeed!


    Nice! Post back with your thoughts. The 24-105 is a pretty loud lens for AF (right? Or it might just be my lens with sand in the motor from years ago...) but works pretty well taking into account just how old it is. I picked up a Sigma 18-35 second hand for around 450 euros which is a beauty of a lens.

  20. 28 minutes ago, PannySVHS said:

    Hey, nice mood for sure! What noise reduction did you use? What were your settings? Second shot looks perfect. cheers

    Cheers! It still looks a little darker here than it did in FCPX or in the exported still before upload. I was using the Sigma 18-35 at f2, ISO 800 with a Tiffen Black Pro Mist 1/4 filter. Used Neat Video to process the noise, dropping the high frequency noise reduction to about -50% to avoid that plastic look and added some sharpening. Neat Video is incredible.

    @HockeyFan12 You've inspired me to do some more tests in the same spot and mess around a little with the exposure. I'll report back later this week.

  21. 49 minutes ago, HockeyFan12 said:

    Thanks, very interesting. In theory that should work almost exactly as an incident meter would (though with the limitation that whatever's facing the camera is lit by whatever source is hitting it frontally, so a bit trickier to meter for some lighting set ups that aren't front-lit, but if anything that would likely promote overexposure).

    Are there zebras or false color for RAW clipping or just for CLOG3? I supposed the clipping point might overlap, so maybe either way would work. I wouldn't need a spot meter at all if I had false color, but I'm not talented enough to light without an incident meter.

    I would personally expect a much brighter image than what you posted if the footage were exposed with an incident meter at key (or a gray card at key, same result), so perhaps overexposing a bit is a good idea. I do remember from my days shooting slide film I'd try to get the darkest part of the sky at 18% gray to get a vivid sunset, in which case everything else would be a black silhouette in lighting similar to what you posted. But I also noticed with the Sony F5 that 2000 ISO base was really more like 1000-1200 ISO and if you exposed that way you had a ton of DR, double what slide film had at least; the A7S also benefits from a stop or two pull (imo). I'm not a big ETTR fan because I think it changes the color of some objects and can cause banding with some codecs, but it does seem like a good idea with digital cameras to overexpose a bit, and the more experienced members of this forum all advocate ETTR.

    5000 ISO maximum would be similar to the C500. I do think the C200 appears to have very noisy shadows, likely noisier than the C500 and certainly with a different (imo worse) texture.


    The C200 is strange in that manner. You're recording a CLOG2 signal, and yet, you can only monitor in CLOG3. Very odd. I've read CLOG2 should really be exposed around 2 stops over, whereas CLOG3 is around 1 stop over. The extra stops of dynamic range of CLOG2 is in the shadows, but from what I've read, and seen, there's a lot of noise down there. 

    I'll have to wander out and do another test, as I'm pretty sure, despite trying to expose for the grey card, I was underexposing the whole time. 

    Oh, and the monitor (the viewable screen space) is exactly 5cm X 9cm.

  22. 8 minutes ago, HockeyFan12 said:

    Can someone who owns a C200 measure the diagonal (or the length and width) of the image on the LCD?

    The screen is 4" but it looks like the viewable area is smaller. Just wondering if I can get away with using an old loupe and maybe cutting off a few pixels, rather than buying the $600 Zacuto.

    YMMV. While I wouldn't rate the Alexa over 1600 ISO (or the Red MX or Dragon over 800 ISO without noise reduction), I once saw a DP shoot with the Alexa at 1600-3200 ISO to get an intentional "film grain" effect and it looked really good. But he was using a ton of light to be fair (about a dozen HMIs, including a 12k). Furthermore, the C500 was the best low light cinema camera of its generation, useable up to 3200-4000 ISO, and for those of us who can't afford to rent super speed lenses, the extra stop matters even more. So I could see 1600 ISO being a limitation for some lower-budget DPs, and for some documentary use, and a disappointment for those who are shooting doc or need the extra stop to carry a lower budget further.

    But I think the better question is total light available, not ISO. 

    This video looks fine up to 25,600:


    But if there were NDs to keep the exposure consistently dark, it would look terrible. 

    The above screen grab has massive scene dynamic range, and will challenge any sensor that's noisy in the shadows. I think that's a limitation of dynamic range more than a limitation of low light.

    @Gregormannschaft, you mention placing 18% gray at 38 IRE, but what part of the image above did you meter at 18% gray? I'm assuming you used an external light meter, but did you use a spot meter or an incident meter? If you used a spot meter, which area did you meter at 18% gray? The sky looks significantly brighter than 18% typically would, though who can guess after post-processing, and the foreground looks much much darker. If I'm exposing with a spot meter (which I usually reserve for slide film, I use an incident meter for video since I'm a bit of a hack), I typically expose the darkest part of blue sky, dark grass, lighter than average bark, or red brick walls around 18% gray, since those values are typically fairly similar to a gray card. In the image you've posted, the sky seems overexposed and the shadows underexposed. I'd consider than an issue with dynamic range more than low light. But I agree the shadows are noisy.

    Cheers for the input, I'll measure the C200 monitor in an hour or so and post results back here. 

    On the exposure, I used a pop up 18% grey card and used the waveform monitor + spot feature of the camera – it basically highlights an object you select on the waveform monitor, which in this case was the grey card. I've found it to be really useful but felt like I was underexposing most images from the other night. I was being careful not to clip highlights with zebras at 100%, but feel like that was really throwing my shadows under the bus.

    I've looked around and there are a bunch of great tests done by Clockroom Media and they reckon that 5000 ISO is the max ISO you'd want to shoot at with the camera – so I was probably underestimating the camera. Although they did an interview shot at 32,000 and used Neat Video to produce great results.

    Either way, haven't shot much CLOG and feel like I'm still very much learning it's limitations.

  • Create New...