jax_rox

Can you put a PL mount on the URSA broadcast?

Your effective field of view would be cropped in compared to a S35 sensor. You’d effectively have a 44-124mm equivalent S35 FOV. 

Sell my a7sII for this or wait for the a7sIII.... ?

1 hour ago, Kisaha said:

@jax_rox EVA ain't C200 in no way, it doesn't even have a viewfinder (the most obvious difference), no touch Dual Pixel AF (the most important difference) and I highly doubt the EVA ergonomics will be as good as any C camera.

A rear-mounted EVF is, honestly, useless. You can't judge the ergonomics without trying it out, and I think it's far superior ergonomically to the FS5 and at leas on-par with a C100/200. Dual Pixel AF it doesn't have, sure, but for me personally auto-focus isn't even a factor I really consider when buying a camera like this...

1 hour ago, Kisaha said:

The EVA reminds me an older video camcorder than a "cinema" camera.

To suggest that is also to suggest that the FS5 and Blackmagic URSA also remind you of a video camcorder rather than a 'cinema' camera. What even is a 'cinema' camera at this price point...? To me, a cinema camera is an Alexa or maybe an F55 (F65 without the ridiculous recorder back). The C100, C200, C300, C500 & C700 do not resemble that in any way. If you make the suggestion that a C200 and a RED Raven and an FS7 and a Blackmagic URSA mini and an Alexa are all 'cinema' cameras, then you can't also say the EVA1 isn't - every single camera I mentioned has entirely different ergonomics and sizes and weights and body shapes and designs. Yet the EVA1 isn't a cinema camera because....? Have you even seen one in person...?

1 hour ago, Kisaha said:

from C200 you go to C100mkII, where is the middle ground? and from EVA, you go to the GH5 (which is a m43 camera by the way, not even a S35 one, which is our case study), if you do not see a big dark hole eating mass/time and space, then I rest my case.

Why would you crowd the market with incremental cameras...? What sense does that make..? How do you further differentiate each price point..? 

Secondly, the GH5 consumer division is entirely separate to the Pro division of the EVA1 and above. The EVA1 is actually currently Panasonic's cheapest 'cinema' camera, whilst the GH5 is Panasonic's most expensive/flagship consumer DSLM. I do think the EVA1 is a touch too expensive. 

1 hour ago, Kisaha said:

Sony and Panasonic are Japanese, if you think that Japanese mindset is similar to middle eastern, Indian or from the Philippines, then you have to re-read a few history books again.

Yet you seem to think that your Western European mindset is more similar to middle eastern, Indian or Philippines.... And you also seem to think that your analysis of developing markets is better than companies that throw literally millions of dollars at research.

They're different markets. They're not looking for $6k middle of the range cameras. Not right now anyway. You mention all the manufacturers developing specific models for these markets. And yet major companies aren't developing $6k middle of the range cameras for them. You think it's because they're just dumb? That they just never thought of the developing markets? That no-one's ever said 'hey, you think we should put our products into the Philippines or India?' 

Or do you think that maybe these companies have spent millions on research, and have people on the ground in the markets and they tend to see what actually works and what doesnt..?

1 hour ago, Kisaha said:

When you go from a 35euros hammer, straight to 90euros, then there is a whole in the 60 euros market. When your paints for a painting, are either 350euros, or 900ones, then you are missing the 600euros one.

No. That's not how markets and business works.

8 hours ago, Kisaha said:

I would rather have a Canon C200 with the EVA codecs, than either the current C200, or the EVA! 

Why? That's basically what the EVA1 is...?

8 hours ago, Kisaha said:

They still do not offer a 4K camera for less than 5000euros/$/quids/money [...]I believe ALL the manufacturers, are missing the most important aspect, and target group, of the market, the around 5000money segment, something from 4500 to 5500.

Yes they do - but the market now consists of SLR/SLMs bodies rather than the bigger bodied brethren.  Also the FS5 is around that price range, and I think is the perfect camera to sit at that price. I think the EVA1 is a little too expensive, but the FS5 is at a good price point IMO.

8 hours ago, Kisaha said:

I would believe that a slightly cheaper capable camera could sell to the thousands, if you consider the markets of South America and Asia, or other less profitable markets in the world

Believe me, if this was the case, the wheels would already be in motion. See Apple re iPhone 5c, for example. These are very different markets, and projecting a European mindset of cheap cameras onto it doesn't really make all that much sense. Don't forget, Sony and Panasonic are headquartered in the middle of Asia...

Here's the thing: A builder needs drills and saws and hammers. A painter needs a canvas and paint brushes and paints and paint tools. A cameraman (usually) needs a camera. If it's a hobby for you, you use what you can afford. The expensive cameras on the market are not aimed at hobbyists for the exact reason that hobbyists cannot afford $10k for a camera body.

I beta-tested this app and can confirm it's pretty good! Not a replacement for a real monitor at all, but great.

8 hours ago, blafarm said:

Follow the settings listed in the first post of this thread.  It is highly unlikely that your camera does not do this.

 I'll check screen brightness settings and test again. FWIW, I've never felt the need to change the screen brightness, even when shooting in 'sunny weather'. Based on the video, it looks as though you could quite easily mistake things for properly or overexposed in the bright monitor setting when it reality it isn't. I think I'd personally rather an accurate depiction of exposure. 

But I'll test anyway and see if I can replicate. As always YMMV.

2 hours ago, jase said:

As far as I know it only dims in 4k mode...?

Yeah, I've just checked it again now and it doesn't do it. Unless there's a particular setting that triggers it that I don't use...

For reference, my A7sII doesnt do this in any way. I bought mine this year and it is running newer firmware. YMMV, but I've not experienced this issue.

13 hours ago, wolf33d said:

It doesn’t show [that a cheap accessible camera] can replace a [more expensive camera] but it shows you can do great things with it

I mean, isn't this every single shoot-out of anything ever...? I thought we all knew this already...? Right tool for the job? Don't let the tools get in the way of your creativity/ability etc. etc. etc.

Works great in FCPX. FCPX is actually fantastic to work with on the new Macs. I tend to edit XAVC on it as it seems to handle it the best of any program I've tried. I also use it for quick edits that I don't want to spend a whole lot of time on.

I'm yet to really try out Resolve as an editor, but FCPX is more attuned fir the new Macs than Resolve anyway

14 hours ago, Mattias Burling said:

What is the weight of it?

I bought a used but very nice fluid head for the Red One + Rig and it certainly wasn't $5K. It wasn't even $500. 

But still, you will need to spend some cash. Unless you get it all included. My guess is that you still can get some back on renting the camera out as well. At least around here where rental places are almost nonexistent.

It's about 7lbs heavier (body) than the RED One. Keeping in mind you'd need an Arri baseplate and dovetail to get it on a tripod. +battery plate and battery, + lens etc. 

It's a nearly 8kg camera (Alexa) vs RED One's 4.5kg. And the RED One is a heavy camera! If you can get a heavy duty for <$500 then great. Most won't.

As for rental, it's extremely dependant on your market. If it's a struggle to hire an Alexa where you are, it could mean that there's no demand for it. It could mean there's an unfulfilled demand. Without knowledge of your market, I couldn't say. Locally, in my market, you'd struggle to hire out an Alexa Classic, particularly if you rig it up with cheap accessories (SD card SxS adapters, for example....). Everyone wants Minis. You can't hire out Amiras. It's Studios on high-end stuff and Minis for everything else...

10 hours ago, IronFilm said:

Brand new then $5K for a fluid head isn't unusual. But if a person is on a tight budget, then there is no need to spend that much. I didn't. 

For what though...? Your F3? The F3 body is 2.4kg. The Alexa is almost 8kg. You can get away with a much lighter tripod for an F3, even rigged out, than you can with an Alexa. I mean, you can try and put an Alexa on an inappropriate head to save some money, but man I don't think I would... 

17 minutes ago, IronFilm said:

You might say it is "just a thousand dollars", but a few thousand here, another thousand there, and soon you're talking about serious money!

But that's exactly my point. If you think you're going to get a workable Alexa package for 'just' $10k you're sorely mistaken. You're probably looking at $500ea for V-Locks that will be viable. $250/filter for proper IRNDs. $5k for an appropriate head. Thousands for dovetails and base plates etc etc. 

Just now, IronFilm said:

For a couple of secondhand SxS cards (the minimum you'd need for a day's shooting) you're looking at five hundred bucks:

When you're buying a $10k camera, is saving a couple hundred bucks worth risking the safety of your footage...? CFast cards are about as expensive (or more) as well....

I'm talking about comparing an SD card that would even come close in terms of the read/write speed of an SxS. Don't underestimate the Alexa   It was my understanding when talking to this rental house that they'd tried using a standard SD card in an adapter and the Alexa did not like it at all. YMMV of course, but again - what's the point of risking it? I don't and will never understand the logic behind spending thousands and thousands of dollars on a camera body and then attempting to cheap out on the very media that saves the precious footage - the footage you spent the thousands to try and produce!

We're not talking about thousands of dollars per card. It's a few hundred extra dollars. Though, you're right (and here's another problem with using an Alexa without a crew) - a 64GB card gets you very little recording time in ProRes 4444... which then means you need someone on call all day to dump data...

Just now, IronFilm said:

You don't need them to be that fast to recorder ProRes HQ FHD. After all many many of us having been doing this for years and years now with SanDisk Extreme Pro cards. 

It is not like we're recording 4K 444 to them! (which QXD in SxS are capable of and are approved to work in a Sony F5/F55)

So where are the limitations:

The card itself not being fast enough: nope!
The adapter not being faster enough: nope! (no fancy electronics in there I believe, is just a straight passthrough connection I think)
Some other weird compatibility quirk: who knows.... is an open question which still needs to be answered!

I know what you're saying, but this was the talk I heard a few years ago when I was discussing with a particular rental house about this exact thing a few years ago. I know technically an SD card may be fast enough to record ProRes HQ in HD, but the Alexa may still have a tough time recording to it. Actual SxS cards are not that expensive, and if you're taking the plunge with an Alexa anyway, I see no reason why you shouldn't simply use the appropriate media, especially given that SxS is significantly more robust and safer than SD.

XQD is likely a different story, though there still may be compatibility quirks. At the end of the day, I wouldn't really be too interested in risking it.

2 hours ago, IronFilm said:

What I'm curious about, but still haven't found an answer for is if SxS adapters for SD (or XQD) cards work in an Arri Alexa? Haven't ever yet found an answer for that. As if they are compatible (I use SD cards in their SxS adpater for my Sony PMW-F3) then that is a tremendous cost savings if buying a secondhand Arri Alexa. 

SD would be neither quick enough nor robust enough, I would imagine. Basic SxS cards are 400MB/s read and 350MB/s write. I was under the impression that you couldn't use the SD card adapters despite being able to use them on the F3 because of those kinds of limitations. I haven't considered it for a few years at least. XQD cards could potentially work, but I don't know that I'd really want to try it out on something mission critical. Realistically, if you're looking at SD cards that are high speed enough vs SxS cards that are second hand, or the original ones - you're not really saving all that much money, and I'd rather just go for the proper cards.

Here's the problems I see with a second-hand Alexa that will affect you differently depending on what you shoot, how you shoot, who you shoot for and who you shoot with:

-they generally have thousands of hours on them, which is one of the biggest reasons for me to steer clear. The cheaper ones could easily be 7 years old, and could easily have 5,000-7,000+ hours on the sensor. A sensor which is difficult and expensive to service.
-you have no way of knowing what condition it is in or what it's been through. Whether it's been serviced at all and if it's been serviced by reputable companies. Arri are usually very hesitant to touch second-hand cameras and if they do, it comes at a very high cost.
-the things are ridiculously heavy. They're not really built for much hand-holding. It can be done, sure, but it's far from the best option for handheld.
-they're designed for use with a camera crew. Most of the settings are dialled in on the assistant side of the camera. Basic stuff can be done through the EVF and on the operator side, but to really do much you need to be on the assistant side. Fine if you're shooting with a crew. Annoying if you're not
-they often don't even come with a battery plate, so you have to buy a plate for the camera before you even buy batteries. 
-they suck batteries like nothing else. If you haven't got stupidly high capacity (and therefore very expensive) V-Locks, you'll be lucky to get 20 minutes from a single charge.
-you need a (not inexpensive) license to shoot 60fps
-you need a (not inexpensive) license to shoot ARRIRAW
-they're overall much slower cameras to work with than any modern camera
-they require much bigger (and therefore much more expensive) support and other equipment to make them 'work' or usable for a shoot. Handheld rigs are in some cases 10x the price, and it's still far from ideal for handheld work. You're going to need a pretty decent head & legs to support it. You're probably looking at $5k+ for an appropriate head. PL glass. IRNDs, and a whole set as there's nothing internal...

If you can deal with, or get around, all of these things (and some are doozies - like not knowing the state of the sensor, nor how far away things are from carking it), then it could be a potentially viable option. I think this is the reason you don't see many more Alexas out there.

You have no idea if the RS port is on its last legs, or anything like that. The things are put together just-so. You have no idea if you're going to buy it and then need to replace the sensor within a few months because you happened to damage a part that just so happens to be a part of the sensor wiring (I've seen it happen).

If you have the cash that you don't mind, then sure. For the type of jobs that operators who would be looking at the $10k mark for a camera, the Alexa Classic is one of the least appropriate options on the market, despite the fact that it's got the best image on the market. At most budget levels where an Alexa would be a consideration, you would generally have the budget to cover the hire anyway.

If I had money I was happy to throw away, I'd probably take a gamble on it, but I don't have $10k USD to potentially throw away on an Alexa body right now...

8 hours ago, redimp said:

The set of PL glass I've got is the lomo OKS, 35, 50 and 75., I plan to use them with iscorama 36.

Keep in mind that shooting HD with a 1.5x anamorphic adapter will require you to shave a little off the edges to get to appropriate resolution, which then means you'd have to upscale a little to get to proper HD 2.39:1 resolution. A 1.33x anamorphic lens wouldn't require an upscale. 

8 hours ago, redimp said:

You can sort of see how it all adds up and the length of the lens is getting sort of huge

Seems pretty average to me. Still a good 1/3rd - 1/2 smaller than an Alexa or Amira with medium sized zoom. 

Dont know what you plan to shoot, but the F3 will be easier to balance on the shoulder.

On 11/3/2017 at 3:55 PM, ssrdd said:

I need on board RAW[some form of] and Autofocus and great low light sensitivity. Eva cant offer anything what i need. So please dont get angry over a pice of plastic box. 

EVA1 will allow external raw with a future firmware update. The low light sensitivity beats Blackmagic and the GH5 hands-down. And probably will match or better the C200 for low light.

As for everything else, paper specs mean little. The Alexa doesn't even have a 4K sensor and shoots ProRes for the most part. On paper, RED should beat it in every quantifiable spec. But it doesn't.

5 hours ago, ssrdd said:

its been more than 2 years that I am using Rx10mk2. time to upgrade. 

After newsshooter review On EVA1-Lack of viewfinder-4:2:0 in 60fps-No dual fixel focus, Not great in low light. Its not really an upgrade, panasonic is too late for market or trend.

Right now my choice is C200 for its internal 12bit and 10bit RAW light upto 60fps, Viewfinder, Great autofocus with native lenses. Lets see what comes ahead..

You'd be silly if you thought that the EVA1 isn't an upgrade over an RX10ii.

For my money, it's the best looking image <$10k. 

6 hours ago, kidzrevil said:

@jax_rox again I have personally never encountered that problem or know of anyone who has but I am more than willing to keep your advice in mind for my upcoming shoots. Where do you think I should lock my exposure when shooting SLOG ? Should I go 1 or 2 stops over ? 

Which part have you not encountered? Mis-match of dept of field..? If you shoot the way it appears you are, i suspect you probably have but it either didn't matter (as it wasn't, say, a film) or you didn't notice it, or you're adjusting your exposure with ISO rather than aperture (though this would create a mis-match in noise).

As for exposing Slog, it depends on which version and with which gamut. SLog2 and SLog3 place their mid grey tones in entirely different spots. You should know this if you intend to shoot with either and you should know what they are and you should use the one that suits you and what you're shooting best. Know your curves.

 Overall, the best thing you can do is exposure tests. Go out and do tests. Expose 1 stop over. 2 stops over. 3 stops over. 4 stops over. Etc etc. come back into Resolve and grade it and see what you like best from the standpoint of colour, noise, dynamic range etc.

If you do your tests properly and extensively, you'll also begin to see where exactly you lose detail. Where things start to clip. Where you're no longer happy with how things look. This is all subjective, but it gives you your personal rating of that camera. You start to understand where you can expose things before you lose them. You end up knowing exactly how many stops you feel comfortable using, and exactly where you want to expose to ensure the best image. This is what I mean when I say shooting Slog shouldn't be a roll of the dice. If you test appropriately, you will know, firmly, exactly where to expose everything and how it will look. 

I can't tell you what that point is, because it's subjective. I like rating the Alexa a stop slower because I've done tests and I like the image better and I know I lose dynamic range above middle grey by doing so. But I know exactly where I lose that detail so I can expose as I need to. Others rate it at 800. Others aren't fussed by the extra noise, or prefer to have the extra dynamic range. I prefer to rate the FS7 1.5-2 stops over. I rate the F5 2/3 of a stop over. I rate the F55 1 stop over. Some agree, others don't. Point is, I've tested the cameras and that's where I like my exposure to sit, and where I'm happy with the image I get out of it. There's no reason you can't do the same, and you will end up with better, repeatable results.

On 10/31/2017 at 8:17 PM, cpc said:

I don't think any other camera has similar (or more) latitude above the nominal mid point?

I've yet to encounter a camera that properly stacks up against the Alexa when it comes to DR. Maybe the F65. Possibly the new Varicam (though I've never shot with it). 

That said, changing your ISO on the Alexa does affect your dynamic range above middle grey. As your grey point shifts, you get slightly less above and slightly more below.

22 hours ago, kidzrevil said:

Never been a problem for me. I’ve been freelancing for years and never ran into that problem on a paid project. Thats a novice issue like shooting on auto. It shouldn’t take you more than a day to color grade a 10 minute long project. No one should have this problem if we are doing this professionally for corporate or consistently making indie films. Please don’t make this sound harder than what it is, you can potentially steer someone away from a school of thought that works for them. 

I'm personally not sure how you could possibly match two shots (say a dialogue scene) where one person was shot at T2.0 and the other at T5.6. 

I don't know what level or what kind of work you do, but if you're paying a colourist $500+/hr you don't want to have to have them adjust every single shot in your entire piece to make it look right or your Producer isn't going to be particularly happy. 

Light your scene to a stop and stick at that stop. You may rate your camera for over-exposure but you should rate for consistent over-exposure.

If you're talking about event coverage, for example, then sure you're probably going to have to expose each shot differently. However if you decide to over-expose, you should aim for a consistent amount. Over-exposing two stops on one shot and four on another is only going to cause you headaches. Why spend a whole day grading 10 minutes of footage when you could do it in half that and end up with the same result (and a happier Producer)..?

19 hours ago, maxotics said:

 

I'm of the opinion that 1 focal length is not only perfectly adequate for certain docs, it can be preferred

 

For certain docs, sure. As a general rule though, and for someone who's going to be making a lot of different types of content, I wouldn't suggest this is the best way to go...

F3 is great, and I don't love the C300 but it's very serviceable. You'll likely be happy with either.

I'm considering selling my F3 because I just don't use it all that much. I find the jobs that are big enough warrant Alexa's and the smaller jobs are perfectly serviceable by ny A7sII which isn't quite as nice as the F3 but has 4K, is light, small and nimble and for the kinds of jobs I'd do with it, the picture is more than good enough.

There's three drawbacks I find using the F3 in 2017:

-being forced to use a recorder to make the image quality worth the investment can be frustrating at times. Needing to rig it out every time gets annoying if you're on a job by yourself. It's also kinda big and unwieldy, though it sits okay on your shoulder 

-the menu system is one of Sony's worst ever. This in itself makes me reluctant to pull out the F3 sometimes

-you can't record any higher than HD resolution. For me, this will likely be a big thing that kills it as an option for many jobs going forward. 

If you don't mind those things, you can get a really great picture out of it. Go for it, you'll be happy. I'm always happy with what I get out of it, I just find I use it less and less these days.

15 hours ago, Mattias Burling said:

Not to that extent. Not even close.

I rarely encounter banding on my A7s and A7sII. What were you shooting? How were you grading? I'd be interested to see examples of banding given I've not experienced it, yet you seem to find it so bad to the point of unusable...

19 hours ago, cpc said:

Actually, I can't think of any non-Arri cameras that don't need some amount of overexposure in log even at higher bitdepths. These curves are ISO rated for maximizing a technical notion of SNR which doesn't always (if ever) coincide with what we consider a clean image after tone mapping for display. That said, ETTR isn't usually the best way to expose log (or any curve): too much normalizing work in post on shot by shot basis. Better to re-rate the camera slower and expose consistently.

As you've sort-of covered... it isn't overexposure necessarily. Knowing the curve and where it places its values is extremely important when shooting log. Moreso when shooting 8-bit log. Blanket over-exposure won't necessarily give you better results. As for Arri, I regularly rate them at 400. 800 may give you the greatest spread of dynamic range, and results are generally acceptable. I find rating at 400 better. Knowing the curve and placing your exposure properly will give you even better results.

15 hours ago, kidzrevil said:

You want more shadow detail ? Expose up. You want more highlight and midtone detail ? Expose one stop over.

Have fun with constantly shifting depth of field and days (and therefore money) in the colour suite trying to get everything to match....

5 hours ago, fuzzynormal said:

I luuuuv primes.  Ain't gonna apologize for it.

Dudes running around with zooms end up with stuff that look like it was shot by dudes running around with zooms.  Too many focal lengths in a production; don't find that at all flattering.

Fine for some fast-work stuff, but my personal efforts are always done on primes.

Primes are fine if you have time to set-up and swap lenses. Great for scripted stuff. Fast-paced work, or work where you only get one go (i.e. documentary etc.) does not lend itself to primes particularly well.

There's no reason you can't get something looking just as good shot on a zoom vs a prime. 

On 29/10/2017 at 8:13 AM, maxotics said:

I'm one of those people who are very critical of LOG profiles. 

 

Log allows you to capture a higher dynamic range than you could otherwise with REC709. It also apportions equal(ish) amounts of data to each stop, rather than the linear doubling you get in REC709. You therefore are able to capture 14 or more stops (depending on the range of the camera) whereas REC709 will only capture 7 or 8. 

To display that, you have to grade so that it will work on a REC709 monitor. That means throwing away information, sure - but you can pick where you place it. Log colour space is very good for versatility in the colour bay. If you don't have the time, knowledge or budget for a grade, you'll likely get results easier shooting straight to REC709. Many lower-end users jumped on log because it was this high-end camera thing that had some magical power to make your images look like a Hollywood film, so people still use it even when they have little idea why or how to.

On 29/10/2017 at 8:31 AM, Mattias Burling said:

My problem with slog3 was never the grading. It was the banding which is there in camera and after.
Nothing to do about it really. 

And I wouldn't mind if it wasn't for the A7sii I had costing more than my complete Red package, a RX1rii + bmpcc combo, way more than a Leica Q and even more than my complete DSLR setup  including great glass that I use today.
If the camera was cheap.. then it would be ok imo.
 

8-bit will do that to you. As for price, don't know where you're getting a 'complete' RED package for $2500, unless you're talking a secondhand RED One kit with a large number of hours on it.

19 hours ago, maxotics said:

Okay, so in LOG, it doesn't take 1,000 colors in that blue range say, it takes 250.  Normally, one doesn't notice.  But if you shoot a scene where there is a blue gradient sky and it shows it to you in 250 shades of blue, they will look like DIFFERENT COLORS next to each other.  That's BANDING!  Of course, they are different colors, but you don't want them so different that the brain says they're not connected!

You'll almost certainly run into banding with any 8-bit camera. Banding has more to do with bit-depth, and available colours to accurately display, say, the sky, than it does with log vs lin per se. Log in 8-bit though doesn't help.

3 hours ago, kidzrevil said:

 I most likely will not commit to a LOG workflow especially on important shoots because it is like rolling the dice on an 8 bit camera.

Yes and no. Depends what you're shooting, what tests you've done and how much knowledge you have of the curve and colour space you're using. It doesn't have to be a roll of the dice, but part of that is knowing when is the most appropriate time to shoot log.