mercer

Yeah, this looks good. His Vimeo page says it’s the 12mm Summilux. I assume most 12mm lenses with IBIS would be pretty rock steady, though. His video with the 42.5mm looks great as well! I am half tempted to pick up a GH5 or GH5s in a few months.

True but that article was suggesting more than just the overall quality of an iPhone’s image, it was about the freedom of the production as a whole when making a film with little resources but still want a higher production value. Sure there are other cameras that offer similar freedoms, I utilize it with my 5D3, but a phone is completely different and apparently the video capabilities on the new iPhone is a major step forward. Idk, I’ve never really wanted to shoot anything on a phone but I am in the market for a new one, so maybe I’ll give it a go. Really? What does the 2nd AC pull... Jokes aside, I assume the 2nd AC traditionally loaded the film but what do they do now? Offload drives?

Production designers on a no budget/micro budget film? I think that article was meant for someone else. This isn’t directed entirely at your statement but I am surprised how the Hollywood establishment has usurped the digital revolution. For the first time since the beginning of Hollywood filmmaking and union crews, any person could truly go out and make a film with the bare minimum. Companies like Zoom and Rode created sound solutions to give a filmmaker proper sound on a shoestring budget. Chinese companies made LED lighting affordable. There are even apps that will tell you where the sun is at any location in the world but instead of going out and making a movie with what they have cheaply available to them, they were told they needed a boom operator, an art director and a 2nd ac to pull focus. Now I’m not saying that people shouldn’t strive for the best work they can do, I just find it amazing that there hasn’t been an influx of great indie films shot with next to nothing. Instead, I am finding an influx of bad films shot by people trying to make a movie like Hollywood would make one. I can only imagine what Kubrick or Truffaut could have made if they had access to these tools. Hell, could you imagine if Hitchcock had a drone for North by Northwest?

@Cinegain you make some valid points, but with all due respect, it seems like you’re still dictating what is, or isn’t, acceptable in an open lens thread. Don’t get me wrong, I’m interested in almost anything lens related. For instance, Kye’s video link is sending me down a spiral of Canon FD lenses. Speaking of FD lenses, Zach’s contributions with his Canon FD 35-105mm f/3.5 lens, on a t2i, is actually very interesting since we already know that FD lenses don’t easily adapt to EF, so he must have had the mount modified. Your normal lens search would yield little results if searching for images or reviews of that lens on an older model Canon camera. And as a former t2i owner, I can easily ascertain how that lens would translate to other cameras. With my lens tests, I purposefully use the same actor, in similar locations so I can weed out which lenses I want to keep or sell. I post a couple images from those tests hoping to get some insight from other members or perhaps supply some info to other people that may be wondering how that lens renders with ML Raw. I’m sorry if it isn’t your cup of tea, but it doesn’t mean it’s invaluable to someone else. Hell, without samples, I think a lot of us might not know about the Nikon Bourne Identity lens and how it looked on a G7 or how the Tokina Angenieux Zoom renders on the P4K. But again, I look forward to your posts regarding topics you find interesting, even if I don’t find them as telling or useful to my work. But I agree with the sentiment of your comment. It’s given me some food for thought on other ways to tackle my personal lens tests and if I do share any of them, I will try to include a little more pertinent information in future posts.

Since I am as guilty as Zach (more so even) I'd like to make a formal apology to your fingers to be forced to work a little harder, or maybe your eyes to witness my putrid images. The rationale for posting frame grabs, or stills, is to show how these lenses work in the real world and to show other readers how they look in combination with different cameras. As much as I enjoy reading about lenses, the courier font doesn't completely express the qualities of a lens in a visual medium. And as awesome as a link to every single new lens that gets released, from every single Chinese optics company is, I'd prefer to see how your images look with said lens and whatever camera you use... then I could truly get an idea about the quality of the lens for my possible use. I also think the lens section has been a little corner of this site where the technical merit of gear is put on the back burner for the optical and mechanical grace of manipulating light, so in that regard, I appreciate Geoff CB's and Noone's and Heartless's and BTM's and Kye's and Zach's, and etc... contributions as an artistic learning tool. But I learn more about a lens on Flickr than I do staring at a DXOmart chart... if you prefer charts and links, I again apologize. However, what I find odd about your comment is... if you would rather discuss lenses in a different manner, I don't think anybody is stopping you from starting a discussion that interests you more. In fact, the lens section is my favorite place in the forum, so I'd be happy if there were more discussions.

A recipe can be patented, but I used the analogy hyperbolically. It was an off the cuff analogy and never meant to truly draw a comparison. With that said, it seems a lot of people, commenting on this thread, either haven't read the patent, or believe that something as obvious as compressed raw video shouldn't be patentable. I don't know enough about patent law, especially regarding software and how it is integrated into hardware, to say one way or the other. But after looking over the patent, in question, it doesn't seem as simplistic as I originally assumed it was based on the comments. There are details and schematics as to how the processing would work in a video camera. In fact, a video camera seems to be an integral ingredient in the patent... as is the exposure timing involved to create a moving image with greater dynamic range. It's arguable that the patent is more about that than it is about compressed raw. It also seems that some folks are using Jannard's questionable ethics to question the ownership, or validity, of the patent? And I don't see how that is relevant at all? It's even assumed that Blackmagic developed B-raw because of this patent, which has never been confirmed either. For all we know, that issue could have been due to Adobe and the processing of cdng files in post. Some people assume that since Apple is suing Red, over the patents' validity, then it must be an invalid patent because why would they even bother. But it's possible Apple is using their significant resources to get a better licensing or settlement deal with Red. Sony even settled their patent dispute with Red and they clearly could have drowned Red with legal fees. So all I am saying is that I don't believe this issue is as cut and dry as... Jannard is a liar, or eventually somebody else would have implemented raw video using a similar method with existing, or soon to exist technologies. If the patent is deemed invalid, for whatever reasons, hopefully that will lead to greater competition and cheaper prices. If the patent is deemed valid, then it will continue to be intellectual property of Red. I really have nothing more to say about it.

Great job!!! Well written and really funny. The sex montage was hilarious. I love the look from the Micro. I’m glad I decided to hold on to mine for a little while longer.

But don’t you need all of those “ingredients” to encroach on Red’s patent? And are we sure this is the patent in question that Apple is fighting? It seems Blackmagic could have kept CDNG up to 5:1 compression or higher at less than 4000 pixels wide? They chose to create B-RAW. I wonder how that patent reads.

Actually, my analogy is not saying that at all because the definition of a recipe is... A set of instructions for preparing a PARTICULAR dish, including a list of the ingredients required. The patent doesn’t restrict companies from including raw video in their cameras... it doesn’t restrict companies from having compressed raw at less than 6:1... it doesn’t restrict companies from having 6:1 compressed raw at UHD, or 2K... it doesn’t restrict uncompressed raw at 4000 pixels wide or higher... it restricts an internal compression of 6:1 or higher based on 50% green pixels, 25% red pixels and 25% blue pixels, at 4000 wide or higher at 24fps or higher. I’m sorry but those are ingredients in a recipe much like a Big Mac’s special sauce is an ingredient in a recipe. Just because a lot of people don’t like that Red owns the patent, they still own the patent. Is the patent valid... I don’t know. I’m not a patent attorney. Right now, it is valid and it is intellectual property. Do I hope the patent becomes invalid... sure why not, I like competition. I think the real question is... if the patent becomes invalid... what company is going to release a camera, with those specs, at a reasonable price point?

Utility Patent: a patent that covers the creation of a new or improved—and useful—product, process, or machine. So under that definition, one could argue that they have the “process” patented. Maybe. But Red could have filed CIP applications that added more information to the original patent... possibly with Redcode. But again this is just conjecture based on my limited understanding of utility patents and zero information on Red’s IP. Either way, it will be interesting to see how this unfolds.

I also see your point, but isn’t the patent, in question, a utility patent? I don’t presume to much about patent law, but it seems their patent falls within the boundaries of a utility patent. Does Red also have a patent on Redcode specifically?

I get your point and it seems a little fishy that this patent would be granted, but to make an analogy... should McDonalds or Coca Cola not be able to patent or protect their recipes because the ingredients are already available for other people to figure out? Red’s patent seems more specific than I even originally thought it was. Blackmagic invested the time and resources to create their own intellectual property with B-RAW, why should Apple or any other company be different? Innovation is often created through limitations and if B-RAW is half as good as it seems, perhaps Red’s Patent is a good thing. But in reality, I don’t really care one way or another. I like competition, so f#*k Red. I also like images from Red cameras and Redcode seems to be a great codec to work with, so yay Red. What I am hoping for is that these smaller companies... Blackmagic, Z-Cam, DJi, etc..., will eventually force Red, Canon, Sony and Panasonic to offer more for less in the future. I think the Komodo could be a good direction for the company if what is rumored/believed about the camera is true.

Yeah, it probably is something as simple as that, but with Apple’s new streaming service, I feel there could be more to the equation. This is how I feel about it as well and I think the timing of Komodo, as a concept, is pretty interesting... not enough details out yet to know for sure though. I shoot raw video and love the benefit of it, but as a hobbyist, I have nobody to answer to and no deadlines to meet. But if I was a content creator that fed my children from videography, I wouldn’t even give raw video a second glance. But even as a hobbyist, I decided I wanted a secondary option, for certain projects, that didn’t call for the raw workflow, so I bought a BMMCC for its internal ProRes into FCPX. But Redcode is interesting in FCPX as well, so I cannot say that I am one hundred percent against Red. Not everything is black and white, except on Internet forums.

I tried watching the video and got about 10 minutes in and was bored out of my mind at the strange points the guy was trying to make from off handed comments said at Red rallies or on social media. Honestly, I’ve only half followed this story but, correct me if I’m wrong, Red is evil because they received a blanket patent regarding some form of internal compressed raw? And people are pissed off because this patent keeps them from being able to buy a cheaper camera that has internal compressed raw? So filmmakers and content creators are against intellectual property, now? Re: Apple lawsuit against Red... I find it more likely that Apple is using the court system to test the validity of Red’s Patent because Apple wants to purchase Red. Also, why does everybody suddenly need raw video? Hell, most television shows and movies are shot on ProRes.

Here are a few more frames from some lens tests. Canon 35mm f/2 IS... Samyang 50mm 1.4...

There’s uncompressed 10 and 12 bit 4K CDNG raw out to SSD through USB-C.

Since Magic Lantern is free, and the team of developers do not make money from it, I can’t see how Canon or Red would be able to win a lawsuit. I’d think either company would have to show damages to win. Hell, the Magic Lantern team could probably argue that they have made Canon money. I wouldn’t have bought a 5D3, Canon lenses, or Canon batteries, if not for ML.

Without the mechanical shutter and with the special heat shield the FP has, it may be possible. Maybe?

This is such a weird camera, in a good way, that I don’t know what to think. Sure, I’d rather have all internal raw, regardless of resolution, bitrate and color depth, but as you said, the T5 is waaay better than an external monitor, so it is not a dealbreaker. And I’m sure Tilta and SmallRig will come up with some great solutions. I also love the director’s viewfinder feature, even if it would be a novelty for me... it’s still pretty cool. Again... it really comes down to price. The $2500-$3000 range has always been a barrier for me and my obsessive hobby. I end up questioning whether it would be worth saving the extra money for a C200, or possibly a Komodo. So hopefully the reps got a lot of face melting when they said “under $3000” and it ends up being under $2000. Thanks for the updates, though @Andrew Reid and @BTM_Pix it’s really great to have people on the frontlines! It seems Sigma is open to suggestions, so the interview could have opened a dialogue for some very unique features via firmware updates. I love Andrew’s idea to squeeze some extra resolution and color depth internally by having an anamorphic mode... hopefully that note made it to the engineer in the booth.

I wonder if the internal 8 bit raw can be used as a proxy recording while simultaneously shooting out to an SSD... that way, the raw panel in Resolve could be used in the edit/color before dealing with the massive 12 bit file sizes.

Yeah I have no problem with IBIS. My dream camera is internal raw with ibis and my comment wasn’t a knock on Canon alone because all IBIS has an old watch mechanical construction. As with most tech, eventually digital stabilization will exceed mechanical IBIS without a doubt. But I am glad to see Canon finally having IBIS in their cameras. Their IS lenses are already as good as lower priced IBIS cameras, so I can only imagine how good their IBIS will be.

Yes 8 bit 4K internal may prove to be better than the MOV. But either way, the MOV is a spec already in cheaper cameras and I doubt most people will buy this camera for MOV... but good point and options are always a good thing. I work in the trade show industry and every morning before the show, the reps and marketing team have a meeting in their booth to discuss strategy. They are fully aware of the questions they will receive throughout the day, so if they said “under $3000” you can be damn sure it will be closer to $3000 than $1000. But maybe they are using the attendees as some sort of focus group and they’ll gauge interest by the ballpark figure... hopefully.

I honestly don’t know what to say about it. In the end, I think the FP will live or die based on its price... $3000 is just too much for a 1080p Raw camera... even if it can do 4K external. With that being said... internal 12 bit 1080p Raw, up to 60p, to SD cards... is pretty perfect for 75% of my use. And then I can grow into the external 4K Raw as new projects and my post hardware grows. Is the 1080p Raw cropped or is it FF? If it is FF and it’s $1999 or less... I will preorder and be a test dummy. I’d also order the 45mm 2.8 lens... did you get a chance to see that at the show? I love the manual aperture ring and f/2.8 is plenty fast enough for FF. @Andrew Reid SmallRig has an elegant solution for SSDs... Attach a small nato rail to the strap lug and the camera will still be relatively small with a proper handle... it would be great if the handle had a record trigger too, maybe BTM can think of something? Once SmallRig makes a cage for it, perhaps they’ll implement a handle into the design to keep the unit as small as possible. Their RX100 cage is a great design, so hopefully they go that route instead of forcing this into a huge rig. Btw, how was the screen?

It’s funny you say that, when I glanced at the patent photos, of their IBIS tech, I thought I was looking at schematics for an old watch. With that being said, I’d love to have Canon IS level stabilization on all of my lenses.

So wait, they’re not Chinese? The plot thickens.