DayRaven

http://www.xdcam-user.com/2014/03/understanding-sonys-slog3-it-isnt-really-noisy/

I've had a DS1 for a couple of months now and it's been very solid. Any problems I've had have been from me trying to cut corners on pre-balancing it. As long as I properly balance it, everything is fine. The only other issues I've had are from not knowing what is happening with it due to the manual not being clear. So, here's some tips on the DS1:
* It starts up in follow mode.
* One button press and you will hear a tone. Now it's in lock mode. (The manual is clear on these two modes).
* Another quick press, gets you a tone and you're back in follow mode.
* To go into half-follow mode requires a two second press. Confusingly, it doesn't give you a tone when you do this.
* To add to the confusion, a five second button press completely disables the joystick. Also no tone. The manual doesn't mention this at all. I imagine that after improper balancing, this undocumented feature causes the most customer confusion.
* Invert mode is easily accessed, just hold the DS1 upside down. You don't even have to turn it off! 
* They don't advertise the DS1 as water proof or resistant, but I've read some people think it is because the wiring is concealed under foam. WRONG! If you carefully look at the DS1 under sunlight you can see the copper wire windings in the motor housings through the gap between pieces. So don't believe the people tag think t may be water resistant.
* I built a double handle rig for it with a couple 15mm rods, two handles and a mounting plate in the middle. That's about another $60 of hardware. It's great for holding the DS1 for longer periods.
I'm happy with my DS1. I got it to work with my NX1, 16-50 S lens combo which is heavy. It does fine. The only problem is that the 16-50 S lens is so heavy that the NX1 has to sit back on the plate very far. This means your tilt range is very limited and that you won't be using any focal lengths longer than 16mm. That's obviously no fault of the DS1.
Here's a couple sample shots where I attached the DS1 to a monopod and used it as a jib (not with the 16-50 S lens):
 

Remember folks that LENS choice has a HUGE impact.
The 4k cameras can very easily suffer from TOO sharp an image. That's one reason the NX1 usually dosn't look nearly as smooth as the 1DC or the BMPCC. The Samsung lenses can be extremely sharp. 

Motion cadence is unique to each camera maker usually.
Some folks can see the difference, others can't.
If you ask enough people, the Blackmagic Cinema and Pocket cameras frequently rank very high, as do the Canons if they are shooting an all I-Frame codec

Having seen many test comparisons done, I can tell you this - you'd be shocked by how similar many cameras can look when you put the exact same lens on them and shoot the exact same scene.

During the summer draught I stand on the bridge and bite my nails. Hoping nobody notices the bags in the shallow water of the Rhine containing those who disliked my favorite movies.

Blackmagic Design Cinema and Pocket Cameras.

1. Record in Film-log RAW at native ISO. (No other settings needed.)

2, Bring into DaVinci Resolve which automatically converts it to a normalized REC.709 output. (No other settings needed.)

3. Adjust color or exposure a little bit to suit each clip. (No other settings needed.)

4. Render to DNxHD or HR 10-bit as a master file to be uploaded anywhere or encoded to small compressed files for whatever.

OKAY - I'm sort of joking...a little bit. But not really.
All those other lengthy complicated steps others listed? Yeah, I have to do all that stuff with my cameras that shoot compressed codecs too, but not with BMD RAW.

Once you go RAW it is very....VERY hard to go back.

The question is : do we have a body not well calibrated ? 5500°K on body, recorded like a 5900°K in real life ... This could be possible... Then a correspondance sheet could be created to move the right WB on the body corresponding to the WB in real life...
I've got a color meter... How could i test the WB of the A7SII (that i got in my hands) ? I've got some X-rite color checkers. My mind says i could estimate the difference (in %) between the color chart seen by the A7SII, and the color chart in Resolve... Then compare it to what the colormeter says at the same moment on white card...
Maybe a new post could be created together to try to estimate the calibration of our bodies ? Maybe someone has already done that ?
What do you think guys ?

I love what Sigma are doing and am excited for the 50-100 F1.8 which I am sure will be mega sharp
But a Speed Booster solution is definitely better value for money.
The XL on Micro Four Thirds for instance is a 0.64x so an F2.8 lens will be F1.8.
The E-mount Speed Booster will make F2.8 a F2.0
The Tokina zoom mentioned earlier or the Sigma 50-150mm F2.8 II EX DC APO for APS-C would be the ones to go for. I have the Sigma, it's great.

This thread has gone quite of the rails. Still interesting luckily :-) Was working on an explanation also but Cinegain beat me to it, cheers haha. Very concise indeed...btw, this and what Tony Northrup is explaining is exactly the same.
As for Andrew's recommendation of the Sigma 50-150: it has my vote too. Great, portable lens well below 1kg (the one without OS that is). Probably very comparable to the aforementioned Tokina 50-135.

But the XL will make the 1.8 f1.15
The problem is that such a long lens without stabilization is kind of useless right now. 

Yes, that's true! That only works for the framing. You're now comparing the same lens set-up, but the sensors are not aligned in the same plane, resulting in different compression indeed.

That's because people are mixing depth of field and exposure and making false statements about them. Also, they want crop cameras to adhere to fullframe camera behaviour, although you could just as easily state you can conform fullframe to crop cameras if all you want is make them identical. Just bear with me:
[> At the exact same settings: ISO, shutterspeed and aperture, regardless of sensor, you will get an evenly lit picture on either of two cameras
Next, we will define two cameras to compare. We'll be comparing a fullframe sensor camera (1.0x, no crop) against camera with Micro Four Thirds sensor (has 2x crop). For ease of comparison we give these two imaginary cameras the same megapixel count and shoot the same resolution video with it without additional crops.
[> At the exact same settings: ISO, shutterspeed and aperture, to get the same framing between the two cameras, you'd have to use a lens half the focal length on the 2x crop body
Illustration intermezzo:

Say, we use two identical 70-200mm f/2.8 lenses at 200mm f/2.8 on both cameras as our starting point. The image circle is the same for both: 200mm f/2.8. For this example we just assume that in the illustration above the circular image on the left is what the lens gives off at 200mm f/2.8. The 35mm fullframe sensor uses as much width as a squared sensor can get out of that circular image, capturing most of the scene. The cropped sensor crops in on that image circle (which, as we can see, doesn't affect the image's brightness in any way). So, we said that for our example we use a 2x crop camera to compare to. Looking at the pictures at the same physical dimensions, we notice that the image of the cropped sensor looks zoomed in. So in order to get back to similar framing we will have to use the lens at a wider position for the 2x crop body (or move the entire camera back in opposite direction of shooting until the framing is the same, but this is inconvenient and may not always be possible). Luckily we're using a 70-200mm zoom lens, so for the crop sensor we'll adjust the focal length to half of that we've set on the fullframe (200mm f/2.8), at 100mm f/2.8. Let's continue:
[> At the exact same settings: ISO, shutterspeed and aperture, with the same framing (two different focal lengths), the 2x crop body will have a deeper depth of field compared to a fullframe camera
We're now using the lens on the 2x crop body less zoomed in, meaning we are decreasing the subject isolation and increasing the depth of field
[> At the exact same ISO and shutterspeed, with the same framing (two different focal lenghts), the 2x crop body will match the depth of field with the fullframe camera having its lens selected to a full stop darker
Pinching the aperture on the lens mounted on the fullframe camera to 200mm f/4 will result in a deeper depth of field to match that of the depth of field with the 2x crop sensor camera that's at 100mm f/2.8. However. Pinching the aperture on the the lens will make the image on the fullframe camera darker... leaving only the one on the 2x crop sensor exposed properly
[> At the exact same shutterspeed, with the same framing (two different focal lengths), with matching depth of field and the fullframe body with lens one stop darker than the lens on the 2x crop body, you'd have to increase the ISO on the fullframe camera with one stop to even out the exposure again
Luckily earlier on we would assume both sensors were made up out of an equal amount of megapixels. However, the fullframe sensor is physically larger than the cropped sensor, giving each individual pixel better light gathering capability. Kinda of like solar panels and their better efficiency when they're bigger. So upping the ISO doesn't have to result is terrible noise per se
THE LESSONS LEARNED (hopefully)
A lens is a lens. F-stop = f-stop. Cropping in on the image circle a lens gives off does nothing, absolutely nothing to the brightness. A crop sensor camera doesn't record f/4 brightness with a lens set at f/2.8, that's just bollocks! For the same focal length used, the crop sensor will have framing that appears 'zoomed in'. To counter this you have to either step back and create more distance between you and your subject, or the more convenient solution: use a wider lens or a zoomlens at a wider position When you want to equal the framing with the different sensor cameras at the same place using different focal lenghts you will create a difference in perceived depth of field To equal the depth of field you either have to pinch the aperture on the lens that's attached to the fullframe camera, or brighten the other one (this might not be possible) To even out exposure you have to work with the forbidden love triangle that is: ISO, shutterspeed and aperture (additional influences: external lighting, (variable) ND filters) In the end I think we're all on the same page. Just some people have poor wording or might just misunderstand the concept a tiny bit. Which is no problem as long as they get it right within their own world and others in theirs. Now, it's well past midnight and I've been up for way too long, so I hope I've jotted down everything the way I meant. If you feel I'm in the wrong somewhere, I'm open-minded enough to accept essays in my EOSHD Inbox and rectify this comment according my newly acquired knowledge. But you really got to bring it to make me a believer...
Now let's get back to that Sigma, ey?

Thanks guys! I got the Sigma 18-35 art lens on there, sadly not mine, but happily a friend has lent it to me "until I get a lens of my own"

​
​Thanks so much, really appreciate the feedback!
I agree about the ambient sound, I agonised about putting it in - spent a good hour carefully crafting the audio I got into the piece but it was in camera only and it detracted from the ambience too much. What I would have given to have my zoom with me!!!
There were two stories that I saw - there was the lone guy meditating on the path at the start and end, but he got crowded out by dog walkers and people throwing stones so he left. That was the story I was focusing on during shooting. Then there was a story I only picked up on after, when I was reviewing my footage. Out of the mist came the rowing boat and the guy rowing it hauled it onto the beach, turned it over and started repairing a hole in the bottom. In my mind I can imagine he got into trouble in the mist, aimed towards the shore and prayed, perhaps being guided by the voices of the people playing on the beach. I definitely am mostly interested in narrative work, and I do need to write a story and shoot it next, something simple and easy to build my skillset!
I do take your critique on board too, watching it back with that in mind, it's really obvious!
Thanks again! I do appreciate your help!

Hi guys,
I've lurked on this site for some time, building up the courage to grab a camera and make something, well I finally did it! I would really appreciate it if you would give it a quick look, it's less than a minute long, and let me know what you think - I'm especially interested in constructive criticism!
 
I was out for a walk and I thought there was a house fire, in the distance I could see this billowing white, what appeared to be smoke. I got to the coast and this stuff was just rolling in off the sea, I assume it was mist or fog. It only penetrated about 20m onto land so those of us on the beach were in this weird twilight zone.
I grabbed my camera and just started shooting, no plan, no gear - I was using a Blackmagic Pocket, the screen was unusable so I was framing and focussing completely blind. I think I did quite well in the circumstances.
When I got my footage home, I made this out of what I had, I wanted to portray the eeriness of the event, and I wanted it to build slowly, hence the transition to black and white from colour, which I am quite pleased with. Let me know what you think, how I could have done better, what you liked etc, but be kind, it's my first video that isn't a family home video!

Hi guys,
I've lurked on this site for some time, building up the courage to grab a camera and make something, well I finally did it! I would really appreciate it if you would give it a quick look, it's less than a minute long, and let me know what you think - I'm especially interested in constructive criticism!
 
I was out for a walk and I thought there was a house fire, in the distance I could see this billowing white, what appeared to be smoke. I got to the coast and this stuff was just rolling in off the sea, I assume it was mist or fog. It only penetrated about 20m onto land so those of us on the beach were in this weird twilight zone.
I grabbed my camera and just started shooting, no plan, no gear - I was using a Blackmagic Pocket, the screen was unusable so I was framing and focussing completely blind. I think I did quite well in the circumstances.
When I got my footage home, I made this out of what I had, I wanted to portray the eeriness of the event, and I wanted it to build slowly, hence the transition to black and white from colour, which I am quite pleased with. Let me know what you think, how I could have done better, what you liked etc, but be kind, it's my first video that isn't a family home video!

​
​Thanks so much, really appreciate the feedback!
I agree about the ambient sound, I agonised about putting it in - spent a good hour carefully crafting the audio I got into the piece but it was in camera only and it detracted from the ambience too much. What I would have given to have my zoom with me!!!
There were two stories that I saw - there was the lone guy meditating on the path at the start and end, but he got crowded out by dog walkers and people throwing stones so he left. That was the story I was focusing on during shooting. Then there was a story I only picked up on after, when I was reviewing my footage. Out of the mist came the rowing boat and the guy rowing it hauled it onto the beach, turned it over and started repairing a hole in the bottom. In my mind I can imagine he got into trouble in the mist, aimed towards the shore and prayed, perhaps being guided by the voices of the people playing on the beach. I definitely am mostly interested in narrative work, and I do need to write a story and shoot it next, something simple and easy to build my skillset!
I do take your critique on board too, watching it back with that in mind, it's really obvious!
Thanks again! I do appreciate your help!

Okay, I forgot to add one critique, it really isn't something you did wrong, because there is no wrong in these types of pieces. But in the middle, there was one or two cuts where you cut from one shot of the ocean to a similar angle of the ocean. I prefer it when you cut and show a completely different angle or a completely different image. 

I liked it. You had some nice shots and a good command of the camera. If anything, I may have liked to hear some ambient sound of the ocean or the breeze, just to add a little more of a haunting feel to the piece, but all in all good stuff.
If if you're interested in narrative filmmaking, how could you use that footage and turn it into a story? 
You have about a minute. What if I told you, it had to be 3 minutes long? What could you add to it, what story could you tell within the parameters you have already created?
But as is, it is good.