mercer

You have read several compelling accounts about NRaw here in this thread. Slashcam tested it on several occasions with best in class latitude, bettering S1H internal which is bettering R8 Canon Raw. Color fidelity is impressive. Andrews article shows a different perspective iirc, about difficulties to work it in post for best effect iirc. Give us your summary of it, if you find time. It's been written very early after that brandnew format came out. @Jedi Master

This topic thread has been with us for awhile.  This movie my wife and I helped make has been around for a few years too.  
Still, it's the holidays, and this is a "1930's" Christmas film. So, if you're interested in that sort of thing, take a peek for a half hour:
 

You can get the Sigma 40mm f1.4 ART in L mount but in terms of it being a pancake…
well it is if you like your pancakes in this sort of quantity.

I've been paying mild attention to the relative performance since the M1 came out and it's really difficult to get a sense of the economics vs performance for a couple of reasons:
Unless you have infinite money, getting a faster CPU will mean not being able to upgrade the RAM, which is often shared, and depending on the circumstances you're in the RAM might be a bottleneck rather than the processing The price of older Apple silicone products hasn't really dropped significantly, so although the M1 and M2 chips are great performers you're still going to pay decently for them I've seen threads of colourists talking about upgrades and what to get, and there are lots of discussions about what trade-offs should be made and which shouldn't.  Professional colourists are perhaps at the cutting edge of this stuff because they have to be able to colour grade any footage in full delivery resolution and in real-time with the client sitting there, so there is no possibility of using any proxies or performance settings etc.  

As the title suggests, any info about the M3 Pro chip compared to M2 Pro chip? They're both on sale but you can save a little extra going with the M2 Pro... is it worth the savings?

As the title suggests, any info about the M3 Pro chip compared to M2 Pro chip? They're both on sale but you can save a little extra going with the M2 Pro... is it worth the savings?

Test video - GX85 with Standard profile and 12-35mm F2.8 wide open.  A few shots were ISO 400 or 800 towards the end.
SOOC:

After grade:

Despite being fully manual, the shots had significant colour variation.  Not sure if it was the vND or what, but colour management is critical to give ability to WB and expose in post on 709 footage.

This is a fun story to think about... "I have that camera and a real Hollywood film was shot with it..."
Unfortunately, that's where the fun ends for their story. If they were allowed to have a 3 person crew, then they could have dropped their budget even more... or if they used Blender or Unreal instead of ILM to do their post...
At the end of the day, their budget was lopsided and the movie bombed, so saving thousands of dollars in camera costs wouldn't have made a difference.
That said... for someone else, that isn't glued to that silly system of making films, they could be inspired by this camera choice. 

This is a fun story to think about... "I have that camera and a real Hollywood film was shot with it..."
Unfortunately, that's where the fun ends for their story. If they were allowed to have a 3 person crew, then they could have dropped their budget even more... or if they used Blender or Unreal instead of ILM to do their post...
At the end of the day, their budget was lopsided and the movie bombed, so saving thousands of dollars in camera costs wouldn't have made a difference.
That said... for someone else, that isn't glued to that silly system of making films, they could be inspired by this camera choice. 

One of the features from the R5C that appeals to me is the 2.9K S16 crop mode in Cinema Raw Light. I'd much rather see that mode in the R5 for the added benefit of IBIS, but it seems that most cameras I have had with IBIS were lacking in a lot of other areas, so I decided a while ago that it isn't a must have feature for me.
Btw, it's good to see you're still experimenting with interesting lenses on these new cameras while everyone else is worried about some new bullshit zoom lens that lacks any ounce of character. 

I would probably only use high resolutions (4K and up) for projects with a heavy amount of VFX which is where I would find the ability to scale and reframe useful. Or if I specifically want that super crispy look. In term of visual quality FHD and 2K are more than adequate for narrative films. Most movie theaters are only projecting 2K DCP. 35mm film prints were only about as sharp as 720p. I even kinda prefer a softer look, and I suspect a lot of others do considering how many people use high res raw shooting cinema cameras, and put vintage lenses and diffusion filters on them. Many of my favorite films are shot on 16mm, and I've always loved that soft, grainy look. 
I'm a big fan of/greatly respect David Fincher, who uses the highest resolution cameras he can for more flexibility. I personally don't like shooting this way. I prefer to have less flexibility in post. I get optional paralysis and would be too tempted to keep tinkering and tweaking endlessly when the options are limitless. It's easer to force my choices in production because the options and time are limited enough to allow me to make some snap decisions, or to force other decisions. I'd rather get the look I want in-camera.
I'm more interested in seeing how upscaling software will advance. The martial arts action film The Raid, which was shot on the Panasonic AF100 (remember that camera??) is being upscaled/remastered in 4K and the frame grab samples released by the director look good.
 

Didn't think this would work at first.

Turns out it does, and then some!
The 9.5K sensor in this thing has enough left over for 4.8K in 2x crop mode
The Ultra HD is oversampled from this 4.8K and we have our nice looking Cinema DNG internal to SD card. Something the Micro Four Thirds cameras can't do.
So it is basically a Digital Bolex at this point.
Frame grab:

The form factor is also perfect for these lenses being so small.
It feels balanced as a Super 16mm handheld candid camera.
It has one over on the Sony a1 for c-mount as well... The 2x crop is sticky, between Cine and Stills, and is remembered every time you turn it on. Whereas the Sony clear image zoom keeps getting reset when you power down or switch modes.
So yeah, I think my Digital Bolex D16 itch has finally been scratched!!
It's also perfect for bunny pics

Nikon pretty much perfected film bodies back in the late 70s with the FM/FE, and their successors, and the F3, so to see a FF digital go back to those body styles is really exciting for me. If the Zf had a split micro prism viewfinder function, it could be the perfect shooting experience.
I was intending on being a late R5 adopter and then go all in with the RF mount, but this release from Nikon is making me second guess.

I hope that unlike the Z9/Z8 that Nikon have got their supply act together otherwise it could be a long wait to get one even at the new price.
It looks to have the same/similar processing clout in it as the big cameras so who knows whether that might be an option further down the line.
Unless RED have got a super specific patent on "RAW video shot at above 23.89999999 fps inside a camera shell that looks quite reminiscent of classic SLR cameras from the 20th century made by a manufacturer whose name begins with N and who were founded on 25 July 1917 at roughly midday local time".
Because they might well have 😉
 

This had definitely be flying under my radar as a rumour so this was an interesting surprise this morning !

I have had the Df since it was launched and it is a fantastic compact D4 and they have finally brought out its mirrorless equivalent.
Unlike the Df, which has no video at all, the Zf is very competitively equipped for a camera in its $2000 price range.
Key specifications
24MP full-frame BSI CMOS sensor In-body image stabilization rated up to 8EV Dedicated Monochrome mode Up to 14fps continuous shooting (JPEG), 11 fps Raw 'C30' JPEG-only 30fps mode with pre-burst function AF system with tracking and recognition of 9 subject types 4K/60 video from 6K capture with 10-bit N-Log recording 32-shot high-res mode to give 96MP images SD and MicroSD card slots  
Full details here
https://www.nikonusa.com/en/nikon-products/product/mirrorless-cameras/z-f.html
 

Hey all!
I’ve been following this thread since it started in 2019. I’ve finally got me my own Sigma FP! So far, I am loving the camera. I think I was lucky to wait so long to get me an FP, as now we are on firmware Ver.5.02 and the camera seems to run pretty smoothly! I’m very happy, and haven’t noticed any of the bugs mentioned back in 2019/initial release.
Apologies to resurrect this thread after a year. But I found something for those of you still shooting with the FP.
I have noticed a new “bug”. One that I think is easy to overlook for the fast paced video producer. (Again, apologies if this has already been found.)
We did a video shoot, and I noticed that the footage was a bit harder to white balance than our other (Blackmagic) cameras. So I did a test.
The results of the test are a little concerning (at least for the sake of color consistency.) See images in this post. I will also post a link to my Davinci Project file, and single DNG frames from my tests.
I set up a few objects in my apartment to capture different colors (apologies for not having a true color checker chart.) A green painting, white foam core board, a red roll of tape, and a yellow hat. I literally had nothing blue to film, but the painting has a little blue in it. I wasn’t testing for color ACCURACY, as much as I was testing for color CONSISTENCY. Everything is lit by a single Godox SL60. No house lights were on, and I blacked out all windows to make sure everything was lit by a single source for consistent color and exposure. The Sigma FP was mounted on a tripod, all camera settings & lens stayed exactly the same for each clip, EXCEPT I changed the in-camera color mode. All clips shot UHD DNG 12bit.
This is where our “bug” is: in-camera color modes. I have noticed that shooting clips (CinemaDNG/RAW, every resolution and frame rate) with ANY color mode activated EXCEPT color mode “OFF”, exhibits shifts in Davinci Resolve.
It has always been my experience that in-camera color modes DO NOT affect how RAW data debayers in post. It’s always been, “RAW is RAW.” “Sensor data is sensor data.”
SO, I shot a clip for each color mode. What I found is that color-mode: “OFF” produced footage as expected. It balanced and graded easily. BUT any clip shot with ANY other color-mode activated, exhibited color imbalance/shifts.
The images in this post are a representation of this issue. In DaVinci Resolve, I balanced the in-camera color mode “OFF” clip, to make the white foam core in the frame neutral. White balance adjustments were done in the RAW panel on the color page. I then applied that same grade to all other clips. I debayered every clip as P3-D60, linear. White balance stayed the SAME between each clip. In my node graphs, I then color space transformed from P3-D60, linear, to REC709, REC709. Tone mapping set to “None”. I did simple Lift gamma gain adjustments for contrast, added saturation, then soft clip to keep things from clipping (all on separate nodes.) Again, the very exact same RAW panel settings, and nodes were applied to each clip.
Still curious, I opened the DNG’s in Adobe Camera RAW. Adobe Camera RAW DID NOT exhibit the same balancing issues as Davinci Resolve did. Both DNG’s debayered identically in Adobe Camera RAW/Lightroom. This possibly means that the RAW sensor data between “OFF” clips and activated color mode clips, has consistency. I suspect there’s something in the DNG metadata throwing things off in Davinci Resolve. SO, I had the idea to convert camera original DNG’s using Adobe DNG Converter. Lo and behold, after conversion using Adobe DNG Converter, both clips were visually identical when imported and debayered in Davinci Resolve. In fact, the Adobe DNG Converted DNG's very closely resembled the color mode "OFF" original. I had this idea because I know some people use DNG Converter to get lossless (or lossy) compression to their DNG sequences. The issue with that/this workflow, is that Adobe DNG Converter removes some Cinema DNG metadata like frame rate, timecode, and I noticed that it reports “16 bit” color depth (among other things. [Just use SLIMRAW software for compression to avoid these metadata issues.] Adobe DNG Converter is ultimately meant for use by photographers.) Since Adobe DNG Converter strips metadata, it must be stripping the metadata that is causing Davinci Resolve to debayer clips differently.
EXIFTOOL shows a few differences between the DNG’s. I suspect the culprit is the “color matrix” difference between these clips. Although I’m not a software engineer, so which metadata it truly is requires someone smarter than me. Maybe some of the Magic Lantern developers could have some insight for us? I will leave out the EXIFTOOL reports since this post is already very lengthy.
I’ve tested a lot of cameras, and have never experienced this issue with any other RAW footage I’ve shot and graded.
Dear Sigma, if you find this post; thank you for making full frame RAW available to those of us without a big budget. You changed the game because of that. Props to you all! I hope you find this post, and patch this metadata issue (probably?) for CinemaDNG clips.

DNG's and Davinci Resolve project files here: https://www.mediafire.com/file/lf9jmvqz5eyajfz/Sigma-FP-Ver.5.02-DNG-Debayer.zip/file

Interesting announcement. I'm glad BM removed the "Pocket" moniker. I'd like to believe they're working on the true successor to the only "Pocket" camera they've made... but I doubt it. As @BTM_Pix has already said... Sigma did that for them.
I guess I'll be the resident contrarian and say that I don't think the Leica L mount was a smart move. They probably won't be able to fit internal NDs when they use this mount and will concoct some type of adapter with built in VND instead. I had the Fotodiox version for my FP and it was horrible. It created a gross, smudgy veil across the frame with even the slightest of ND. At first I thought it was due to me using a wide angle lens, but nope, it was there with a 50mm as well. Shame too because the version I had for M43, years ago, worked great.
Obviously, I understand that the L Mount opens up a lot more lens options. If anyone has read my posts over the past 8 years, you know I have a lens addiction, so mirrorless mounts are great so I can dust off my Minolta MD, Canon FD, and with some cameras, I can even use my c-mount lenses.
That said, even with EF, there are still a lot of lenses available, but more importantly, to me, when adapting lenses, the EF mount adds the flange distance needed on the body and not on the adapter...
And with that said, I understand that BM is dealing with a tweener market... part of their customer base wants to adapt any lens under the sun... the Leica L mount gives them that... and another portion want to use new lenses... the EF mount doesn't offer that anymore (another reason why I thought Canon made a mistake ditching EF) but the Leica L mount does.
Also the lack of ProRes is just imbecilic.
And with ALL that said... I'm sure it will be a great camera and have a lovely image, and I'm sure there are other Swiss Army features that it offers that will benefit a lot of folks... I'm just not one of them...
Blackmagic... if you're reading this... go back to your roots and give us a tiny S16 sensor, 4K camera with a built in monitor and acceptable battery life... your entire ethos was to bring small, affordable cinema tools to the masses.
For me... I already own 2, full frame, cameras that shoot raw video and at that price point, although respectable, I'd rather pony up an extra thousand and get an R5C for Canon Raw, DPAF and a better Cinema platform... or $500 for an R5 for Canon Raw, DPAF and IBIS. Easy choice.

I read a lot of this post and here are my two cents... cool camera... too expensive... too big/ugly.
I briefly used a GH6 and although it was rather utilitarian and not small... the body felt good in the hands and the dual hinged screen was amazing. The extra depth for the fan, didn't seem awkward. The only qualm I had with the camera, which was big, was noise in the midtones. I wish I had more time with the camera because I think there may have been a work around if I kept testing, but unfortunately I just didn't have the time to dissect it. I may give it another go because having internal ProRes and amazing IBIS was such a great combo for my needs...
It felt like the closest thing to a Cinecorder (another term coined by @BTM_Pix ) since my time with the FZ2500. The GH6, in my opinion, is the most underrated camera to come out in the past few years.
The G9ii seems cool too... when the price drops.

I read a lot of this post and here are my two cents... cool camera... too expensive... too big/ugly.
I briefly used a GH6 and although it was rather utilitarian and not small... the body felt good in the hands and the dual hinged screen was amazing. The extra depth for the fan, didn't seem awkward. The only qualm I had with the camera, which was big, was noise in the midtones. I wish I had more time with the camera because I think there may have been a work around if I kept testing, but unfortunately I just didn't have the time to dissect it. I may give it another go because having internal ProRes and amazing IBIS was such a great combo for my needs...
It felt like the closest thing to a Cinecorder (another term coined by @BTM_Pix ) since my time with the FZ2500. The GH6, in my opinion, is the most underrated camera to come out in the past few years.
The G9ii seems cool too... when the price drops.

Interesting announcement. I'm glad BM removed the "Pocket" moniker. I'd like to believe they're working on the true successor to the only "Pocket" camera they've made... but I doubt it. As @BTM_Pix has already said... Sigma did that for them.
I guess I'll be the resident contrarian and say that I don't think the Leica L mount was a smart move. They probably won't be able to fit internal NDs when they use this mount and will concoct some type of adapter with built in VND instead. I had the Fotodiox version for my FP and it was horrible. It created a gross, smudgy veil across the frame with even the slightest of ND. At first I thought it was due to me using a wide angle lens, but nope, it was there with a 50mm as well. Shame too because the version I had for M43, years ago, worked great.
Obviously, I understand that the L Mount opens up a lot more lens options. If anyone has read my posts over the past 8 years, you know I have a lens addiction, so mirrorless mounts are great so I can dust off my Minolta MD, Canon FD, and with some cameras, I can even use my c-mount lenses.
That said, even with EF, there are still a lot of lenses available, but more importantly, to me, when adapting lenses, the EF mount adds the flange distance needed on the body and not on the adapter...
And with that said, I understand that BM is dealing with a tweener market... part of their customer base wants to adapt any lens under the sun... the Leica L mount gives them that... and another portion want to use new lenses... the EF mount doesn't offer that anymore (another reason why I thought Canon made a mistake ditching EF) but the Leica L mount does.
Also the lack of ProRes is just imbecilic.
And with ALL that said... I'm sure it will be a great camera and have a lovely image, and I'm sure there are other Swiss Army features that it offers that will benefit a lot of folks... I'm just not one of them...
Blackmagic... if you're reading this... go back to your roots and give us a tiny S16 sensor, 4K camera with a built in monitor and acceptable battery life... your entire ethos was to bring small, affordable cinema tools to the masses.
For me... I already own 2, full frame, cameras that shoot raw video and at that price point, although respectable, I'd rather pony up an extra thousand and get an R5C for Canon Raw, DPAF and a better Cinema platform... or $500 for an R5 for Canon Raw, DPAF and IBIS. Easy choice.

I read a lot of this post and here are my two cents... cool camera... too expensive... too big/ugly.
I briefly used a GH6 and although it was rather utilitarian and not small... the body felt good in the hands and the dual hinged screen was amazing. The extra depth for the fan, didn't seem awkward. The only qualm I had with the camera, which was big, was noise in the midtones. I wish I had more time with the camera because I think there may have been a work around if I kept testing, but unfortunately I just didn't have the time to dissect it. I may give it another go because having internal ProRes and amazing IBIS was such a great combo for my needs...
It felt like the closest thing to a Cinecorder (another term coined by @BTM_Pix ) since my time with the FZ2500. The GH6, in my opinion, is the most underrated camera to come out in the past few years.
The G9ii seems cool too... when the price drops.

Richard Wong tested better lowlight capabilities than R7 and XH2. No big treat? Like anything else on this camera? I think it is, just like the ne Ibis, AF, Dual Gain and heck what not, possibly even a creamier image for video. Richard Wong did a 2hour+ review!
I like the body of the G9II. The S5, S5II bodies are the best looking FF cameras to my eye. Now, you have been, are and will keep being entitled to your opinions and underlining them from different angles. I understand what you mean but I prefer Richard Wongs input compared to the repeated statements regarding body too big, etc. I think it's perfect size. I see it as a cinema and cinema verité camera par exellence. Whereas the Sony A6xxx series is not a pretty sight to look at and the A7C has just the same kinda body. Scandalous, isn't it!
I am astonished about the G9 II, this new video beast. The unconvinced ones among us, they can repeat their complaints again just like been done before. It will leave me shaking my head due to that lack of appreciation. This thread surely needs some more overheated love for Sony brick cams. Some fresh Sahara winds from freshly fried  brick cam sensors. Some ever searching future Sony camera buyers with the same psalms and unwillingnes of purchase need to chim in more! Big time! Feels good to adapt to the overly cheek in tongue tone of this thread. We all sound like the mighty 30 to 60 year old dudes ruling this world, universe, cultures and greatest of manners, with an appetite and naughtiest of greatest plaisir of judgement. Seen that, done that, been there and all that tasty confidence. Gee, I need a break from some of the lesser intriguing "insights". I'll give you a longer one. I read the word wankers in one thread. Gimme a break. Missing @mercer and many more of the friends of the past. I am sure you do too. The tone in this forum has been lacking for quiete a while now. I'll give myself a break in the sight of overconfidential antics of the latest weeks on Eoshd. I think it's a great last word of this post. I appreciate this new camera and our lovely and dear Eoshd.

That is where I'm going with this to be honest and, despite all the hand wringing on here about it, I don't think the motivation for change will come until the 10% become the 90%.
Maybe the EU will come galloping (or more likely sashaying considering the pace they work at) to the rescue with a standard rating system for cameras denoting the number of overheating shutdowns per hour.
Call it the Sum of Heat Induced Terminations and measure it on a 1-10 scale with the higher number obviously being the worst.
It would offer more clarity and might actually shame them into doing something about it.
"So, Mr Sony, regarding overheating, what is the SHIT rating for this new camera ?"
"Oh, its very SHIT indeed."
 

It is meant to be announced later today, and things have leaked already...
Leaked (translated) specs:
Micro 4/3 Live MOS Sensor Image plane phase detection AF Internal 5.7K 60/50p 10bit recording ProRes 5.7K & ALL-Intra 800Mbps via USB-SSD Anamorphic Mode 5.8K 30p 10bit Burst 75fps AFS – 60fps AFC





For everyone that wanted a PDAF GH5 v3, this looks like it.

Can this thread become dedicated to any older Sony camera? After 12 years of shooting with mirrorless cameras, DSLRs, and Blackmagic Pocket/Micro cams, I finally got a proper "camcorder" or "cinema camera" or whatever you want to call it. I got a camera I had my eye on for the past four years that finally popped up on mbp for $999 so I had to have it. The Sony FS5! I also preordered the Sirui Nightwalker cine lenses on Indiegogo so I can have some proper no-fuss lenses to go with my no-fuss camera. I haven't had a proper camera for video that didn't require a bunch if fiddly rigging since I moved on from the DVX100 (to the GH1) in 2011. The built-in variable ND is amazing.
I got it yesterday so today I decided to test the DR and test with Slog3 in 10bit 4:2:2 2K (and grading with FilmConvert Nitrate). Since last year I've been doing this by sitting in front of a big window at magic hour. This is also partially an experiment to find a good set-up that raises the interior light while sill being somewhat moody. The goal wasn't a bright commercial or interview look but a naturalistic dark-but-not-in-silhouette look without the window going nuclear. The natural light was supplemented by an Aputure LS-60D at full blast shooting through the diffusion disc of a 45" 5-in-1 reflector just out of frame camera-left. The compression of the grab kinda butchers it and crushes the shadows, but at least you get the idea.

Here's the shot before I entered frame, so you can get a better look at the window/space:

I think the light just barely allowed me to achieve what I wanted. The room is super cramped so it was challenging, but I'm pleased with this. I think I still have some practice/testing to fully get the hang of exposing for and grading Slog3. Side note: I didn't think I would share any footage so I wish I had dressed a little better before getting on camera.