Ed_David

I have done ton of color work in the new one - zero crashes.  It's good.

I always found the responsiveness of the editing tool really slow - maybe my settings are wrong though.

Anyone else, opinions?

6 hours ago, Mattias Burling said:

Not agains the D40 but I can test against film. I have Portra, Ektar, Fujicolor, Slidefilm, Kodak Motion Picture (cinestill), Polaroid, Instax and a whole candy bag of different B&Ws

Cinestill is awesome!!

7 hours ago, Nikkor said:

What about the Fuji FinePix S5 Pro. It has these super dynamic range pixels that record the highlights. That has to be filmic.

 

@Ed_David

Damn it now i gotta get this too!

regraded the test!  Made the Ursa Mini look better as well as red dragon

Final color:

DP3 vs Nikon D40x vs Portra 400 or some other form of film?

Can you do it? I'm going to test D40x vs Portra

Now getting a nikon d40x, which has even more dynamic range.

some interesting links:

https://www.dxomark.com/Cameras/Compare/Side-by-side/Nikon-D3000-versus-Nikon-D80-versus-Nikon-D40X___623_518_514

Also here's a list of every sensor Nikon has used:

https://nikonrumors.com/2015/12/16/list-of-all-nikon-dslr-cameras-and-their-sensor-manufacturerdesigner.aspx/

5 hours ago, squig said:

Why bother. looks cool.

Can make it better color wise and edit

42 minutes ago, HockeyFan12 said:

Those look great. I loved shooting 135 and 6x7 but large format was too expensive for me. Maybe start processing and scanning yourself? It'll slow you down more and save you money, too. The Nikon 5000 is seriously good. I used to own one and it has driver issues but once you solve them it and the Nikon 9000 scanners are spectacular. But very slow... I wouldn't get a flatbed scanner for 135.

Or try underexposing on the D80? It's not a bad camera I just don't think it's quite what you're looking for. Maybe save the money for more film. If I shot people I would shoot on a Leica Rangefinder, no question. Tiny, sharp, and no thunk or heavy shutter so with good technique you can use lower shutter speeds. I love rangefinders and 135 has great texture, looks more organic than larger formats. But I'm not really interested in stills these days. If I were I'd shoot film probably.

I got a film scanner on ebay for $50 I'm going to try.

The darkroom which did those photos isn't that bad - it's $11 for developing and scanning per roll, if I don't go for the higher res photo options that's $15 a roll and the quality of the grain looked good.  Working on kodak ultramax which isn't the best film stock anyway

But yea, I'm going to give the d80 a quick chance and probably get rid of it

7 hours ago, HockeyFan12 said:

I really liked the tonality of the D70 (at the expense of very grainy shadows), but if you're looking for a clean highlight roll off, I'm not sure that's the camera, either. I did like the look of it. Less digital looking than the 20D and subsequent Nikon and Canon cameras... but noisier. I remember the highlights clipping just like with any other digital sensor, though. 

I think you might be stuck with film tbh. But there are worse things than that.

I think you are right.  Just film is making me broke!

Shot this on Kodak Ultramax 400.

I don't know if the Nikon D80 is going to get there

2 minutes ago, BTM_Pix said:

Coincidence that you should mention the D1x and Sigma as there was a thread on DPReview recently that I found very interesting.

Its taken me a bit of hunting to find again !

It was actually about AF on the SD1 and this guy posted up a link to a gallery of shots he'd taken at the same event on a couple of the SD Merrill bodies, both of the SDQ bodies and, oddly enough, the D1x.

The DSC file prefix ones are from the D1x.

Its a flawed test for a number of reasons but, still, the D1x were definitely the ones that popped out to me when I looked at the gallery page.

 

Original thread is here

https://***URL removed***/forums/thread/4201570

Text of the specific post is here :

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Greetings

Here are a few shots. 3 are done with the SD1 some with the SD15, SDQ SDQ-H and my Nikon D1x 5mp camera. The SD1 shots were shot at ISO 1600.

https://www.flickr.com/photos/elitefoto9/albums/72157685581297124/with/35998503563/

I find the AF on the SD1 trying at times. I have a split image screen in one of mine for manual focusing. Here's what I've learned over the years. The SD1 isn't really for sport but can be done. I'll look for more image to post later. I don't have the 17-50 f2.8 but do have the 17-70 f2.8-4 and it works very well. To be honest my SD15 worked better when it came to AF. My Nikon D1x beat it and my D1x is 13 years old now and the IQ is really good. You can see it in the images. What I do know is you'll have to micro adjust the lens to get the best IQ. I also found that the older EX DG can't be shot at high resolution the lenses can't do it. Steve Chong uses this combo and say it works great.

More later

Roger J.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Thanks for this - doesn't look like the photographer was trying to match skin tones - probably used whatever popped out of camera into raw, or however he processed it.

The Sigma - the biggest issue - is overexposure - that's not smooth at all - completely blown out highlights - video-y as heck.  

Excited to play with the d80, nikon's last CCD and seems from reviews to be one of their best cameras.

1 minute ago, Cinegain said:

Bro, like... from time to time I keep on checking out that one vid you did and it blows me away every single time.

You worked wonders with that F35. To me, it honestly doesn't get much better than that.

Thanks - yea - was just comparing it with something my friend just shot on 35mm and it looked really similar!

Going to try to regrade it.

16 minutes ago, Mattias Burling said:

Thats the one I have been eying before. Ive heard very good things.

100 bucks man.  Test vs Sigma - that would be a really good test.

33 minutes ago, Mattias Burling said:

The only CCDs Ive had are the Leica M8, M9 and M9 Monochrome.
Looking forward to  see what you make of it. 

I have also been sort of looking at older CCD DSLRs but Im currently watching a Foveon DSLR that Im hoping will be mine.
Also my DP3 Quattro got misplaced in the mail and delayed until monday.

Ordered a Nikon 1DX for $100.  Image quality looks beautiful.

Seems better than Canon EOS-1d. 

Kodak DCS-760 - seems like it has some kind of film-like mojo- but way too expensive to justify

33 minutes ago, Mattias Burling said:

The only CCDs Ive had are the Leica M8, M9 and M9 Monochrome.
Looking forward to  see what you make of it. 

I have also been sort of looking at older CCD DSLRs but Im currently watching a Foveon DSLR that Im hoping will be mine.
Also my DP3 Quattro got misplaced in the mail and delayed until monday.

Nevermind, Nikon D80 is even better image it seems like.  Cancelled my other orders, going for this!

Leica M9 is pricey!!  Maybe best CCD imager ever made?

2 hours ago, Mattias Burling said:

I printed 2m prints from a Fuji X-T2 + $1K 56mm and the cheap SD-Quattro.

The Sigma print has more detail, better contrast and nicer colors at a third of the price. Thats the last test I ever needed to make for myself on the subject

Throwing this out here now, Mattias.

How does Foveon compare to Canon's ccd cameras like the 1d, or to Nikon's CCDs like the 1dX, and to their own version of foveon - in the D2H.  And to film.

I just ordered a D2h on ebay.  

Looking into Canon 1d and Nikon 1DX and Kodak DCS 760

Kodak seems to be the best, but going for nearly $800 on ebay!  I think it was $8,000 when it came out

2 hours ago, sam said:

Spreading false prophecies amongst  the gh5 sheep, dooming them to digital darkness forvever.  Just wait till the return of the one true film.  

Right now me and some DPs in New York are trying to make processing film more affordable.

Lighting was 2 1x1 astra lights at 5600k into a bead board, soft side.  Book light.  Then double diffused with 2 silks stacked.

F35 is an interesting beast.  I can upload raw footage so people can play with or if you send me a harddrive or sd card I can put stuff on it.

I recommend to everyone if you can rent it, or just try everything.

And the GH5 - very nice camera.  Not for me, but I am just one opinion and trust your own instincts.  My opinions change daily.

1 minute ago, SMGJohn said:

I recently acquired a Sigma SD Quattro from Japan just to have some fun alongside a 17-50mm Sigma F2.8 which for the price is okay lens.

I put it up against my Samsung NX500 and I just do not see it, what does this camera do better than my Samsung? It seems Samsung has exceptional colours out the camera as well albeit the profiles fall flat so I boosted them in bridge but other than that everything else is straight out the camera, DNG/RAW to JPEG with no edit except a crop, both cameras using standard colour profile which should not matter as neither seem to translate that to the RAW file. 

Both using F2.8 and 28mm range, I used the middle section. 

While some may say its unfair to compare 19 megapixel to 28 megapixel, remember that Foveon captures true RGB colour but yet does not have the colour resolution of a NX500 funny enough both cameras are best at ISO 100 - 200 and starts degrading the further you increase ISO.

 

NX500 - SD Quattro DNG - SD Quattro X3F

 

Maybe I am doing something wrong, I got the latest firmware on both cameras too or maybe I just do not see it. 
Someone shed some light on this? 

I think boost saturation level in the sd quattro to match it.  To really do a good test (not like I am good at that  - You should bring a color chart.  Shoot with the sigma at 100 ISO, the other camera at it's recommended ISO, same lens (as much as you can) and go from there.  I think of course, you would have to rent the removable lens quattro to make it work.

It's crazy, and maybe it's me, but I can't find a single A/B test on the internet besides one really quick one to compare foveon and cmos bayer pattern

6 hours ago, squig said:

I've always thought the F35 has the most filmic (35mm) look out of all the digital cameras straight out of the box; same goes with the D16. CMOS just looks too real without post processing. There's just something about the way CCD sensors capture light compared to CMOS I suppose; it's just too bad they suck in low light and there aren't many to choose from. Fujifilm have come the closest to making CMOS look like film out of the box, I wish they'd make a proper digital cinema camera. I'm a bit surprised with your Alexa tests, the Dragon did more for me (never been a Red fanboy), which was the opposite of what I expected, but there's tonnes of great looking Alexa stuff so like the 5D Mk3 it's just a matter of good post work I suppose.

I can see the color noise in the shadows, crushing the blacks a bit hides it. For projects without much of a post budget and minimal low light shooting the F35 fits the bill; the best bang for buck too.

Yes, F35 gets you there pretty quickly.  But it's highlight roll off is not smooth at all and its highlight clipping is ugly as well.  That's where the alexa is king.

But yes, you need time to make cmos look at good.  

Here's more f35 vs f65 .  More to play with f65, f35 the image already falls apart just by merely touching it

Here's f65 vs Alexa vs F35.

F35 just has less room to play with in the shadows - and a ton more noise. So what I would do for another test, is bring in a fill light or bounce board

Also learned:  I am not a fan of slog3 or sgamut3.  It's orangey.  Sgamut is much more pleasing skintones.  

Yea, f35 gets pretty noisy quickly.   this test doesn't show it, but it still handles mixed color so beautifully.  

i just go back and forth whether i like it or not.

6 hours ago, jcs said:

Why stop there? GH5, 1DXII, C200, C300II next? Expect a call from Zacuto soon ?

I was curious to test the f35 - because I am getting tired of bayer-pattern CMOS and how it renders skintones vs CCD, and Ricardo brought his 5d mark iii, so boom, added that in.

F35 vs F65 below.

Shooting at 400 ISO on both cameras.  F35 was 12-bit DPX files 1080p, sony f65 was 4k 3:1 compressed raw

Just added a 5d mark iii raw and sony f35 into the test. Results soon

Resolve 14 full version - been using it a ton - no crashes.

Very happy with this program.

Blackmagic is a HELLUVA company.

6 hours ago, kabuto1138 said:

Hey Ed, great test.  No f35? you did great stuff with it, why not in the test?

Doing that today!

I sold mine!

But my friend Ricardo is going to come by.

I redid the grade here, still crazy macro blocking in YT:

Also did a ursa mini 4.6k in 16mm mode - like the color better than the micro or pocket. better blues

4 hours ago, squig said:

I liked C, F, then A for skin. B & E lacked warmth. Overcast?

In the street I like F, A, then C. C looked a bit too magenta. The sky was overcast for E, I think it could look good in the sun. B didn't do a lot for me.

I'm gonna guess F is either the Alexa or the F65, but fuck knows.

What's the asterisk on F signify Ed?

Ed (if you've got a 5D Mk3 handy) would you mind grabbing the skin tone shot @ 3k raw? A decent 50mm at f/2 will match up.

The test is real.

A is Red Helium (low-light)

B is Ursa Mini Pro

C is F65

E is Arriraw (Alexa Mini)

F is red dragon

F* is red dragon in s16mm mode with angeniuex glass

Test showed me that Ursa Mini holds its own in skintones and highlight handling.  Not as precise as the red helium or f65 or alexa, but pretty darn good.  And on the street - doc stuff, it definitely holds its own.

It showed me the helium definitely has better skintones than the dragon, but again, on the street, not as crucial, all though the dragon kind of has a "dead" feeling to me - something about it lacks flair.

The alexa and the ursa mini for me was the most natural off the bat.  The Ursa mini has nice reds that I like.  It falls apart in highlight handling in more extreme situations, but it's a $6k camera, and it's going against $50k cameras

It shows me that the f65's mechanical shutter is beautiful - but not really that noticeably better and definitely does not make the extra weight and bulk and size of the f65 worth it.

It's a crap test, but I still learned a lot from it.

Mostly this: I gotta stop buying cameras.  Cause every 6 months a new camera or sensor will be out, and the old one is not as good.  So I shouldn't be pushing for a tool that's not as good.

The new venice - it could be amazing, and it's possible the ursa mini will look 80% as good , with a lot less hassle.  

Canon 5d mark iv and mark iii raw - I should try those guys out.

But, in the end, I am still gravitating more and more to 16mm glass and feel.  

The red dragon was pretty darn beautiful how it handles the extra grain - moreso than the ursa mini pro (all though that has nicer colors) and the micro camera - with its moire issues as well as iso issues.

But still, is it worth $20k to have a working 16mm camera when the world is moving towards full frame for video?  How does 16mm feel compared to full frame?  That's my next test.  

Camera A is the red helium with IPP2

Camera C is the Sony F65 (slog3.cine, sgamut)

Camera F is Arriraw (Alexa Mini) going log-c

all with a filmconvert lut.

I think the slog3.cine is pretty good.

There is a natural green color to it that is nice.

But yea, there is kind of an orange look to their sensors.

Canon and Blackmagic have a more red look in skintones.

Red has a bizarre greenish overcast to it in their skintones.

But these are just my opinions.

The venice is, god-willing, going to be quite the camera.  With more inherient resolution than the alexa, with a nice form factor, and a camera that looks studier than the alexa mini.

The dynamic range and motion may be close to film.

Maybe not.

Just have to wait till footage comes out and tests come out.

Also, this camera is built like a beast.  And a removable sensor and the mount system - this should be looked at as quite innovative.  The ND filter as well.

Anyway, sure poo-poo away the Sony.

But I rather have this camera than a canon c700 or a panasonic varicam or a red helium.  Can it beat the alexa?  That's the question.

E is arriraw

A is red helium

C is F65

1 hour ago, jcs said:

Hey Ed, maybe do the test again? Even one scene where everything is constant (except camera) would be good.

But then the comedy would be lost!