Jump to content

Django

Members
  • Posts

    2,431
  • Joined

Posts posted by Django

  1. Full Nikon/RED rumour list:

    Future Nikon sensors will be co-developed with RED and mass-produced for lower prices.

    Nikon will start making cinema lenses for Z mount with T stops – I assume the next RED camera will be with Z-mount.

    Nikon will slowly introduce new RED formats and video recording options to Nikon cameras.

    The Nikon Z6III camera announcement may have something to do with the RED acquisition.

    We should expect some kind of a Nikon/RED announcement at the 2024 NAB show next month (maybe the Z6III?).

    Nikon N-RAW will become RED RAW. Adobe just mentioned online that they will no longer make upgrades to Nikon N-RAW because it will be replaced (see the Ado\be developer’s pinned post – click for larger view)
     

    Pretty exciting stuff if above is true!

  2. I think if we look at the Komodo which is around the price of a C70, uses RF mount and has AF, it gives us basis to speculate that future entry level RED cams with Nikon tech and Asian manufacturing could venture out of the high-end cine market and compete with Canon & Sony C/FX line.  

    And reverse wise Nikon high-end cams will benefit from Redcode and other ciné savoir-faire like color science, anamorphic support, open gate etc.. it also finally gives Nikon users an upgrade path to a cine line and creates a more viable ecosystem. 

    That is great news for consumers and further increases my desire to switch to Nikon. 

  3. Saw the movie on pay per view the other day, much better film than I was expecting. Think Blade Runner meets Terminator 2 meets Rogue One (also by Edwards/Fraser). Loved the visuals. Mostly filmed on location in remote parts of South Asia and it shows. Very different approach than most sci-fi blockbusters like Rebel Moon and such that make extensive use of green screen , virtual production, the volume etc. 

    I still think shooting on the FX3 was a buzz/challenge/marketing decision but hey they pulled it off. Goes to show how mirrorless sensors are so good these days its really everything else in the pipeline (lenses, grading, post etc) that determines "cinematic" image quality.

  4. Actually his test reveals very similar DR between the two with R5C having way better highlight latitude and FX3 cleaner shadow info. But its worth noting FX3 uses high amount of internal NR whereas you can dial it down on R5C. You can also access Clog2 if you shoot in RAW. So unless you need that 12,500 ISO for like extreme low-light situations, R5C is imo way better than FX3 in almost all categories. The fact FX3 still doesn't even have shutter angle is blasphemy.

  5. 4 minutes ago, Ty Harper said:

    Honestly it was that thinking that had me pick up an R5 as a second cam for its IBIS and I gotta say, I wish I had just bought another R5C. Whatever it is that IBIS does 'better' than Digital IS is lost on me. Nowadays I don't use IBIS or Digital IS and mostly shoot with IS lens on both the R5 and R5C. 

     

    90% of my Canon glass are EF primes and none of them have lens IS. 

    IBIS is just great for getting rid of micro jitters and what not. Its a solid feature. Digital IS not only crops but can also introduce other issues. And of course IBIS isn't immune to that either with infamous wobble issues on wide angle lenses.

    The beautiful thing about Z8/Z9 is that you can actually lock the IBIS. So it can be on or off depending on lens/situation.

    Having options is always better than not having them!

    That said, within Canon ecosystem, I would definitely choose the R5C over the R5 even though it doesn't have IBIS.

  6.  

    On 12/12/2023 at 4:53 PM, ade towell said:

    All well considered points it's just that as you say I think the z8/z9 is the latest and greatest regarding image quality and would be excited to use it - the R5c image to me looks very similar to the R6 I was using a while back, nice but kind of Canon vanilla - more of a sideways step.

    Anyway they both shoot lovely footage so can't really go wrong either way

    Right well all Canons have pretty much the same look, its really resolution, codec, log curve, rolling shutter & DR that's going to differentiate the files. And while I wouldn't really call the Canon look vanilla, I kinda see what you mean. It's a familiar look.

    Z8 footage I've taken really blew my socks off, it does feel next level. the colors, the detail, latitude. IQ is so rich and clean. Its not really a very filmic image, but its high-end.. feels modern. On my 27" 6K monitor the 8K image just pops, its almost like a window into the real-world!

    I just watched a thorough review of Z8 with some real-world pro video applications, its non English so pointless to share it here but it did show some pretty big concerns on the overheating. Apparently hot card warning will start to appear within minutes if you shoot in 8K. The guy was doing an all day interview shoot with Z8 & Z9 and it sounded like Z8 simply didn't make it through while zero hiccups with Z9. 

    So for me Z9 is really the only option in Nikon land. That's not a bad thing as the vertical grip and added battery life are essential bonuses. I really need to try one ASAP though to see how I gel with the ergos, size/weight.

    The more I think of it the lack of IBIS on R5C is kind of a deal breaker. I shoot a lot of handheld so going back to a non IBIS camera feels like a step back to DSLR days and I hate gimbals. I feel that at this budget there shouldn't be any big compromises like that so it looks like I'm leaning back into the Nikon camp with Z9 in sight. Sorry for all the back & forth, I know it sounds like I change my mind every day but good news is I will probably commit very soon as I plan on making the purchase on my upcoming trip to NYC. Getting pumped!

  7. Clog2 inside R5/R5C would be awesome and I'm not sure why its not present there. There is always the RAW workaround. In any case matching Canon footage has never been too problematic I find, again R5C allows you the really dial-in the gamma and the color space for log which I find is pretty key to match footage in cam. WB & color check as Ty Harper mentions and you really shouldn't struggle much. I find it lot harder on Sony cams to be consistent since they keep changing color science every gen. Nikon doesn't even have a cine line and I've really struggled getting decent DR out of N-log. So in the end its almost reluctantly that I'm leaning towards Canon (R5C) as I do think Nikon has the better sensor, mount and specs but having that active cooling is such a relief, shooting / editing and grading is a breeze and the Canon mirrorless/cine ecosystem does allow for expansion so those are the main reasons I'm probably headed back there. In a sense it sucks because I want the latest and greatest which is Z8/Z9 but a couple things are holding me back. If that rumoured firmware with 8K120p burst and open-gate gets confirmed I think that may sway me to switch but even that's a long shot..

  8. 6 hours ago, eatstoomuchjam said:

    Which tests?  Any objective test that I've been able to find shows the R5C having marginally better DR to the R5 (as you said, possibly due to better cooling or different processing), but still much lower DR than the C70 at SNR 0.5 or 1.  Having just used the C70 and R5 together side-by-side on a shoot last weekend (both using raw lt), I'd say the C70 images were overall cleaner and have a lot more detail in the shadows (even aside from having less noise) - I was glad, I was a bit worried that I'd end up feeling silly having traded in a bunch of gear and some cash to get the C70.  😃

    Despite using the same sensor Canon did a lot of tweaks on R5C resulting in much better noise performance and DR than R5. It isn't marginal, again the noise pattern is entirely different. Something a chart won't show you. R5C has dual ISO so at ISO3200 its going to be cleaner than C70. At C70's base ISO 800 it will have better DR. Different sensors (DGO vs Dual ISO) different results. There are plenty of comparison tests online, some scientific, some real world. Overall the image is pretty comparable as far as DR imo. I guess if you're pixel peeping or lifting shadows at ISO800 C70 would be better but in the end I don't think you're going the C70 route mainly for that. Battery life, XLR, built-in NDs, ergonomics is what you are paying for. YMMV.

     

  9. Yeah if you're not planning on doing advanced grading or setting up CST nodes in Davinci then I'd probably avoid shooting N-log altogether. Fortunately Nikon has nice usable picture profiles like Flat & Neutral that with few manual adjustments can give you a very pleasing image. So Nikons can be practical for SOOC shooting. But I much prefer Canon especially with the Cine line options for grading log footage. YMMV.

  10. 14 hours ago, ade towell said:

    From what I’ve seen I think the Z8 and Z9 have the best image and colour separation of all the mirrorlerss cameras, there is something special going on there, the R5c just looks like all the other Canon mirrorless, nice image but lacking a bit in DR and slightly noisier. The sensor tech just seems a bit less cutting edge. Canon have always struggled transferring the DR from still into video on their mirrorless cameras. A real shame as it is there in the rest of the Cinema line from the C70 upwards

     

    Yes the Z8/Z9 IQ is top notch I agree. However, R5C IQ is actually improved quite a bit from R5 even though the same sensor. The image has less noise and much more pleasing noise pattern, unlike R5 that has nasty digital chroma noise. I think the active cooling helps in that regard. As for DR there have been tests that show R5C has very similar DR to C70. Shadow recovery is cleaner on C70 thanks to DGO sensor. The real shame is no Clog2 on R5C so you have to shoot RAW if you want max DR.

    What I do like about Clog3 on R5C is you can change color space internally. You can switch Clog3 to cine gamut, wide DR, BT2020 etc. This is superb for grading in post. Makes everything clear, flexible and easy.

    Nikon's N-log is still confusing and tricky to grade to me. Really tough to get great cinematic grade results. The official LUTs are even more terrible. Most of the time I end up giving up and using the flat profile. 

     

    15 hours ago, ade towell said:

    For me with the IBIS too the Nikon’s are the clear winner. Their lenses also look like they are better suited to video especially if you use AF being almost silent. I always had trouble finding fast affordable  Canon lenses that weren’t noisy  

    Yeah its true the f1.8 Nikon primes have more silent AF motors than the Canons equivalent, however once you put them in manual, the fly by wire system sucks with a lag and non linear throw. Nikons overall AF for video is imo sub-par compared to Canons cine AF. It jumps, it hunts, back-focuses etc. So what good are silent lenses when the AF isn't stable? 

    I still really like the Z8/Z9, mainly the SOOC IQ but deciding between both systems isn't so clear cut and simple as it may seem on the surface or just by looking at paper specs. I've now used both extensively and start to identify pros/cons in their workflow and usability in the field that may tilt me one way or the other.

  11. Maybe if you bought a Z9 before a Z8 you may wanna trade it for the lighter cheaper model but if you buy a Z9 today it is because the extra features and ergonomics of the Z9 appeal to you. Wether it’s for battery life, better heat management, weather sealing, the built in vertical grip, or better balance for long lenses, there are bunch of reasons why a pro would still pick a Z9 and keep it for many years to come. I know if I go Nikon I would be tempted by it over the Z8. Z8+grip I heard is a really clunky solution, the grip really sucks I guess plus it becomes bulkier and heavier than the Z9.

  12. I love rangefinder cameras and my M9+28mm summicron still holds a special place in my photography heart. 

    Reason being I love shooting through viewfinders and that's where the dedicated manual controls for focus, aperture, shutter speed and nowadays ISO become second nature. Its the pure essence of photography. 

    Fuji have definitely nailed this in their X series and the XT's were imo great hybrids. I actually loved the dials for video too.

    Compact rangefinder style cameras are also discrete and inconspicuous which is fantastic for candid photography and places where video may not be tolerated. They're basically the absolute counterpoint to a sport DSLR, Z9, cine cam.

    That being said, there are many applications where this may not be ideal cameras. For fast action scenes, run & gun, hybrid video or even vertical portraits etc I'm always going to prefer a DSLR/mirrorless with snappy AF, custom buttons and settings, vertical grips, tilt screens etc.

    So it makes sense to me having both types of cams in your arsenal.

    The Zf is interesting. Spec wise it does feel much closer to a Z6 than a Z8/Z9. Video might look similar on Youtube once its all compressed but the Z8/Z9's 8K60p RAW or even FF 4K60p ProRes HQ will give you so much more headroom in post than the Zf's cropped 4K60p h26x.

    All that said, I also have some concerns about some Z8 shortcomings, namely overheating. I hate to spend that kind of money only to feel limited by that. Especially considering I plan on shooting 8K a lot. So that means I'd have to go with Z9.. but then I'm dealing with a brick again, a camera that's big/heavy and intimidating. Not to mention pricey. 

    .. so I'm actually leaning towards R5C now mainly for the peace of mind of having a fan guaranteeing zero overheating. Yet in a compact mirrorless format that I can rig up or rig down. There are couple other specific features pushing me in that direction as well. I haven't yet ruled out the Z8 but for my intense 8K usage I need a reliable all day tool. 

  13. So I got a hold of some R5C XF-AVC files and was very pleasantly surprised at how well they could be handled on my Intel iMac Pro. Just as good as ProRes really so that kind of levels the codec battle in between these two platforms. Also looking closer at R5C it has some good C line features such as Cine gamut on the log side that gives a nice cinematic image and wideDR. On the HFR side you can dial-in precise fps to conform to 24p for subtle slomo (like 30fps to 24fps). AF has the very handy face only that sticks and doesn't hunt when the subject turns around or disappears from the frame. 

    The big minus of the R5C is battery life but with a power bank is easily worked around and the big bonus of the R5C is the fan allowing non-stop recording in all modes and zero overheating. 

    Today I'm kind of leaning towards R5C as my next cam purchase just because some of the pros really tick my boxes more even though overall Z8 probably has superior IQ, i/o and specs.

  14. - A new log curve extremely close to LogC4, was created for N-RAW to maximize encoder efficiency and record the sensor’s original color space.

    - 8.3K 120fps burst video mode, shooting only 2.5 seconds. It uses the same high-speed readout mode as still photos.

    - Anamorphic Lens Support. Provides FX-format 45Mp Open Gate 3:2 30fps RAW video recording. Supports 1.33x, 1.5x, 1.6x, 1.8x, 2x de-squeezed display function.


     

    shocked-haskell.gif

  15. 3 hours ago, Jedi Master said:

    I only listen to classical music, which isn’t subject to the regrettable loudness war that has been plaguing rock and pop recordings on CD for the past few decades, so I’ll only comment in the first recording discussed on the link you provided, since that score, although electronic music, is probably the closest to classical than the others. The CD recording of Chariots of Fire was released in 1984 (I have a copy), at a time when CD’s were in their infancy. Recording and mastering equipment weren’t as sophisticated as today and techniques such as dithering and noise shaping were not yet in use. It doesn’t say on the CD whether it was originally recorded on analog equipment or digital, but since it was recorded in 1981 I’ll assume it was an analog recording, and that may have been responsible for a higher noise floor on the CD recording than what might have been had it been recorded digitally (I have dozens of CDs released around the time CD audio emerged in the marketplace, and the ones recorded digitally have an exceptionally quiet noise floor).

    You assume correctly. Chariots of Fire was produced and recorded by Vangelis in his Nemo Studio in London. And it was pretty much all analog aside from a Lexicon 224 reverb. Recording was printed on Ampex 1/2" tape machine. DBX noise reduction was involved. Full details and recording equipment list can be found here:

    https://www.soundonsound.com/people/vangelis-recording-nemo-studios

     

    3 hours ago, Jedi Master said:

    I really don’t want to argue this to extremes, but my professional experience in signal processing gives me the tools to understand the nuances involved. There’s also a big industry devoted to selling snake-oil audio products (such as magic crystals you tape to speaker cables, $5000 power cords, and $150,000 turntables), and they have a vested financial interest in getting people to buy this stuff, so push all sorts of outlandish claims in audio publications to that end.

    FWIW my background is actually in studio recording. Not as an engineer but as a player and back liner of vintage equipment both outboard and electronic analog and mechanical instruments. I've also had a DJ career and still hold on to a couple hundred (thousand?) rare 12" vinyl releases. So yeah I don't wanna argue either (analog vs digital is an old ever lasting debate and today I do use digital audio tools mainly from Universal Audio) but lets just say I'm pretty vested in the subject matter too 😉 .

  16. 4 hours ago, Jedi Master said:

    Yes, I want to get technical. 😉

    That’s factually incorrect. An LP has a dynamic range of, at best 70 dB, with most lower than that. A CD has a dynamic range of 90 dB, which is significantly more than LP since the dB scale is logarithmic.

    What I said above applies to the baseline capabilities of the two formats. However, lots of rock and pop music gets the living hell compressed out of it to increase the overall loudness level. Wikipedia has a good article on this so-called “loudness war”. The CD format, with its inherent better dynamic range, makes it possible to push this to extremes. You can’t do this to such an extent on vinyl because the stylus would skip out of the groove. So yes, some recordings on LPs have more dynamic range than the same recording on CD, but that’s the fault of idiot producers who demand that the audio engineers crank up the overall volume to ridiculous levels, not any inherent limitation of the CD format.

    Cleaning an LP is tedious and has to be done before every playing, and even then it’s difficult to get rid of all sources of clicks and pops. Every play of an LP results in wear that results in degraded sound that cannot be fixed and only gets worse the more the LP is played. If an LP pressing is not perfectly flat and the hole not perfectly centered, this will also affect the sound. With mass production, such imperfections are inevitable.

    Inner tracks on an LP sound worse than outer tracks because the LP format uses a constant angular velocity and inner tracks have to fit the same amount of information into a shorter length of track.

    I’ll stand by my position that vinyl LPs, from purely a technical perspective, are inferior to CDs in every measurable aspect of audio performance. To claim otherwise is audiophoolery.

    Lots of people like LPs for various reasons, including nostalgia, the larger album art, the physical act of playing an LP, and the “warmer” sound that’s the result of the peculiar distortions of the format, but they’re only fooling themselves if they think LPs are superior technically.

    CD vs Vinyl DR is an old debate and it isn’t as simple as that when it comes down to it. Lossless wars aside, many other variables come into play. Here is a study that comes up with a more nuanced approach to what you are stating:

    https://www.audioholics.com/audio-technologies/dynamic-comparison-of-lps-vs-cds-part-4
     

    ..in any case this is an analog vs digital debate that can be transposed to film but is far less subjective and entirely different than the fps topic started here..

  17. 7 hours ago, thecouchguy said:

    C70 with speed booster. This way you can get some RF 24-70mm & RF 70-200mm and have class leading dynamic range and versatility. Then if you need more low light you can chuck on the focal reducer for effective full frame. Or as others have said, fx6.

    While the C70 is a great compact cine cam, the fact it is RF S35 means you need to buy very expensive FF RF glass that you won't even be fully exploiting, unless you adapt with the speed booster. On the flip side, the FX6 is FF only so that locks you into FF glass. 

    I really think both Canon & Sony need to release above +4K resolution FF cine cameras next so you can enjoy both FF & S35 native lenses. Currently the mirrorless offerings are way more flexible in that regard.

  18. 4 hours ago, Jedi Master said:

    I went with four friends to see The Hobbit in a theater that showed it at 48 FPS. I knew it was at 48 FPS, but my friends didn’t. I asked them after the movie if they noticed anything different and none of them did.

    I liken this nostalgic liking of 24 FPS with hipster’s liking of vinyl LPs over CDs. Technically, CDs are much better in every measurable way than LPs, but these people somehow prefer LP sound despite the snap, crackle, and pops and the obvious distortion and wow and flutter. I suppose that’s because that’s what they’re used to or because they’re lemmings following the latest fad.

    Actually if you wanna get technical, a properly mastered high-quality vinyl LP has much more DR than CD or even lossless codec file. That's why audiophiles respect vinyl so much. Take a look at these numbers from the DR database for Daft Punk's RAM album (the reference for mastering):

    vinyle_daftpunk.jpg

     

    and FYI, if you take care of vinyl, dust it off before playing and use a high-end player and cartridge, you will have zero crackle, pop, wow, flutter. Its like saying that analog film is all noisy and dusty. Vinyl is like IMAX 70mm.. with a proper scan it will be superior to your 2K/4K/8K digital footage. Analog is still very popular in audio production (much more so than in photo/film industry) and for good reason. And while its true that some hipsters buy into analog only for the retro/cool factor, its just as ignorant to claim analog inferior to digital. If you know what you're doing it most certainly is not. 

  19. On 11/30/2023 at 7:21 PM, Ilkka Nissila said:

    These things can be done. I just configured my video shooting bank A for Prores 422 HQ 25 fps and 1/50s SDR, and bank B for h.265 4K 50 fps 10-bit 1/100s with N-Log, and I can now switch between banks by pressing and holding Fn3 (which I programmed to act as shooting bank selection button from the video custom settings custom controls menu) and rotating the main command dial. Very handy.

    Awesome, thanks for confirming that can be done, very handy indeed!  Here is another quick question: how do you set up that hi-res zoom function? last time I was on a Z8 I couldn't figure it out. I activated it in the video menu but couldn't find how to set it to a Fn button or anything else really. Its a very interesting feature I'd like to try, also can you set the zoom speed like have it zoom in slow or fast? 

  20. 59 minutes ago, Ilkka Nissila said:

    Django: You can use shooting menu settings banks (A-D) for video and the bank selection can be set to Fn1, Fn2, Fn3, or Fn vertical, for example. I am not a settings bank user so I would have to check if you can select the record file type, resolution and frame rate there but I would guess that you can.

    If you don't mind checking and letting me know, I can't seem to find that info online or in the manual.

    Would be totally awesome though if you could store specific video resolution, frame rate, shutter speed, log/profile, codec etc in a custom bank and recall them on the fly with indeed the Fn buttons! Fingers crossed that is a possibility..

  21. 2 hours ago, Ilkka Nissila said:

    What is a C1-3 dial? If you mean custom settings like U1-U3 on some Nikons, where the mode dial has customisable options which remember most settings, then no, neither the Z8 nor the Z9 have those. But there are photo shooting banks and custom settings banks.

    Are these custom banks on the Z's for video settings too or only photo? Basically can you have custom banks like A: 4K24p ProRes, B: 4K120p, 😄8K60p RAW etc? Those are so practical for quick codec/frame rate switching when on the field. If not, that's a big plus on the Canon side (although R5C only has them for photo mode as video mode uses the cine OS).

  22. 5 hours ago, The Dancing Babamef said:

    In my field of work I couldn't get the Z8, even if it wouldn't overheat, but it's the batteries for me that sealed the deal. I used a Z6 for enough time and worrying about taking extra batteries on a 3 hour shoot and interrupting video recording to replace a battery. I was ready to move to the big boy.

    I'm not a hardcore professional but even now as just a hobbyist I need the Z9 more and multiple times I've had to switch to the vertical shooting position with my 200-500 and twisting my hands with the same lens on the Z6 was enough for me to realize that there is a better way.

    And now I only have 2 18C batteries with me. 1 is enough to cover a day with ON/OFF 8.3K RAW video recording. 

    Valid point, is the battery life that bad on Nikon bodies? I mean if it was bad on Z6 then its going to be horrible on a Z8? I don't quite realise as I didn't push the Z8 by any means when I tested it. Again using a USB-C external power solution is always an affordable option to get more juice out of it (same goes for R5C) but yeah Z9 I'm sure gives total peace of mind. I shoot a lot of vertical for stills as I mainly do portrait work so maybe Z9 is the body I should be considering if I go Nikon.

×
×
  • Create New...