Jump to content

Kino

Members
  • Content Count

    167
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by Kino

  1. I only mention it because I am very close to cancelling my Scarlet-W order and going with the C500 and Odyssey 7Q+ instead. I absolutely love the C500 image and with the recent price drop, I think it's a much more attractive setup for me (and a little cheaper). I just have to look more into rigging options for hand-held use. For some reason, the Canon engineers removed the hand grip when implementing the 4K output into the C300 body. I've been researching the C500 recorder options for a while and have read about problems and quirks with other recorders. For example, Jonathan mentioned usi
  2. https://www.dpreview.com/news/5855300360/sony-announces-alpha-99-mark-ii "The a99 II can capture 4K at 100Mbps (using XAVC S) with full sensor read-out and no pixel binning. A Super 35 option is also available, with 1.8x oversampling. A 'Slow and Quick' mode lets users jump between 1 and 120 fps at the push of a button. All of the capture tools you'd expect are available, including zebra patterns, time code, S-Log2 and S-Log3 profiles and 4:2:2 output over HDMI." The XAVCS internal is a shame, but necessary because Intraframe would probably be impossible in a body that is much smalle
  3. I would cross out the Scarlet-W right away. You are looking at $15K minimum to get up and running and the waiting time is very long. I know because I ordered many months ago and I'm still near the back of the queue with no allocation in sight. Moreover, the RED cameras are not ideal for documentary, have very poor on-board sound options, and would introduce a steep learning curve for someone who shoots primarily with a Sony A7RII. I would also stay away from the C500 + RAW recorder option unless you have used this exact combination before and know all the quirks involved. There are simply
  4. I think we should also mention that, in the hands of a real pro like Canon's own Brent Ramsey, the C300 II is capable of stunning internal 4K: It's amazing to think that this was shot in the camera's internal XF-AVC 10 bit 4:2:2 (YCC). Canon always gets the best possible colors, skin tones, and DR out of any 8-bit or 10-bit codec. There are many RAW cameras that don't deliver this type of 4K image quality. Here is a useful article about image processing in the C300 II: http://www.thedithouse.com/on-set-data-management-transcoding-dailies-systems/canon-digital-slr-workflows/
  5. Internal. It's right there in the C300 II menu. And, yes, it is really gorgeous!
  6. The winning bid was $6,000, which sounds unreal! The owner must have been really desperate to sell. The Sony F5 is one of the reasons why the C300 II could not really compete at $16K (the other reasons are the FS7 at $8K and Canon's own C100 II and C300, of course). 16 bit RAW vs. 10 bit 4:2:2 (with YCC color space) is not much of a competition. Unfortunately, the best mode for the C300 II is the 2K 12 bit RGB 4:4:4 (similar to the C500): It's a shame they can't make that available for 4K internal, since it would make for an incredible camera. Dogtown, if you are going
  7. The C500 produces beautiful, filmic imagery and is outstanding in low-light compared with most cinema cameras. Musicbed used to shoot their "Artist Spotlight" series on the C500 (before they switched to RED) and there are some really nice examples of 4K and HD footage there. You should definitely check out their Vimeo channel: I'm sure you've seen the Hurlbut C500 tests, so I'm not going to post them here. As demonstrated in those tests, the DR in 4K mode is lacking compared with the best of the modern cinema cameras. But I don't think the more limited D
  8. Well, I thought we were past the personal attacks, but I guess you just can't help yourself. Indeed, some people never learn or "wise up." I'm not calling the UM 4.6K "off-the-shelf," as you already assured me that it is not. It is custom designed and exclusive to BMD. Fair enough. The Fairchild sensor, on the other hand, is listed as available to the public and is by definition "off-the-shelf." I never said ASICs are related to sensor design, but they are part of the image processing chain, which I wrote about back on page 6 of this thread: "It appears that BMD has to involve t
  9. I own and have used the BMPC-4K. Nowhere do I make any claims about using the 4.6K, which I don't own. I have discussed on this forum my experience with the BMPC-4K but never anything else. As for the UM reviewers and the magenta problems, I've seen a lot of evidence of flawed units posted online by individuals well-known to the community on BM Forum and bmcuser. I've also looked at camera files that were made available. What I don't accept are the examples of "magenta" with suspicious parameters such as f16 or beyond, where all digital cameras look very poor and display noticeable color shift
  10. Well, I suggested that very possibility on page 6: “And, yes, it is entirely possible that BMD contracted Fairchild for the 4.6K with an arrangement to create two versions of the sensor: one for BMD and one off-the-shelf version.” http://www.eoshd.com/comments/topic/20526-ursa-miniis-this-the-end-of-blackmagic/?page=6 To which John responded with the following on page 7: "Of course you are trying to perhaps have me confirm a technology partner of BM, when you know full well I'd never be able to disclose that without breaking an NDA, but I can assure you, the sensor used in
  11. That combination is actually the essence of the term "Blind Peer Review," which is what gives scholarly journals all over the world their credibility. Otherwise, reviewers would be tempted only to accept articles by their close associates. It's the substance of the argument that matters, not the identity of the writer. But, certainly, there are different protocols for a forum and I can understand why you say that. A casual discussion is different from a journal.
  12. The Fairchild 4.6K is "off-the-shelf" in that it is available to the general public. John has stated that the Ursa Mini 4.6K sensor is not "off-the-shelf." It is of course possible there are two versions, one for BMD and one for Fairchild, as I noted a few pages ago. John also maintains that BMD has designed the sensor, which is fine. I believe him and I even cited the lapsed BMD patent application that may be relevant. We will have to wait and see when they file those applications again. That's the only way to know for sure.
  13. John, You have a very selective memory when forming your arguments about what I’ve written. And speaking of diversion, your latest tactic is to cut-and-paste some posts out of context and out of a timeline that went on for months as we waited for the Ursa Mini 4.6K’s release. These bmcuser posts from 9-12 months ago also have nothing to do with the current topic of BMD’s design patents or its quality control. Moreover, anyone can be quoted out of context: “You're looking pretty silly. You're inferring a conspiracy theory that those that have shot with an Ursa Mini are hiding its flaw
  14. Speaking of "sideways arguments," John, instead of addressing the issue of whether BMD contracted Fairchild to design the 4.6K sensor, you have resorted to another sideways debate on whether I know what ASICs are and how that relates to sensor and camera design. You then suggest that I consulted Google when forming my arguments and that I’m otherwise an “idiot” for accusing BMD for not designing their own sensor. If BMD designed the sensor instead of hiring Fairchild, where are BMD’s patents and why does Fairchild hold the rights to a sensor with the exact same specs and release date? It
  15. Land claims that RED is the only cinema camera company other than Sony that designs its own sensors and ASICs (integrated circuits). He makes no claims about where the sensors are fabricated. Of the cinema camera manufacturers, only Sony, Canon and Panasonic have their own sensor fabrication plants and have the potential to do everything in-house. Like BMD, RED would have to "outsource" the fabrication itself, which involves many steps, including the wafers from a semiconductor plant and the various other components that are then attached. The finished sensor just doesn't come from one pl
  16. From the Kinefinity owners I've read about or heard from, it seems that they have excellent customer service. They are also an honest company and tell their customers the truth, which is a great relief after what has happened with that other budget camera manufacturer. Distribution issues aside, I have much more faith in Kinefinity than any other camera manufacturer in that price range and I'm sure the 5K version will be along shortly. The Apple ProRes certification is also really difficult to obtain, so maybe they will push that to a future firmware update. Of course, everyone has to mak
  17. Yes, the 5K has improved rolling shutter over the 6K, which is exactly the same as the Kinemax 6K. I corrected the sentence above in case it was vague or unclear.
  18. The Kinefinity rep at NAB claimed that the Terra 5K version will have a "dual gain" sensor (for an expanded DR) as well as an improved rolling shutter mode in contrast with the 6K, which has the same specs as the Kinemax 6K. He made it very clear that the 6K version will perform exactly the same as the existing Kinemax 6K: A lot of the Kinemax shooters seem to love the golden 3K that is for sure. Here is a very useful review of the Kinemax 6K by someone who owns and operates the camera for a living: To me, 5K is absolutely the perfect resolution a
  19. Nice, but where have I seen this type of modular design before? Recall that the Kinemax 6K has the worst rolling shutter of any cinema camera unless you shoot in the 4K "sport mode," which then defeats the purpose of buying a 6K camera. So I'm not sure I would go for the 6K version. The Terra 5K, however, has the potential to be the best value in this price range, with the switchable global shutter and a 5K ProRes option. 5K also makes a lot more sense than the oddball 4.6K resolution in its competitors the Raven and Ursa Mini when considering the advantages gained in debayering for
  20. So it's just a coincidence that the BMD 4.6k sensor and the Fairchild 4.6k sensor have exactly the same specs and were released at the same time, right down to the switchable global/rolling shutter we were originally promised in the Ursa Mini? Having said that, there have been no statements from either company on where these sensors came from. BMD reps have claimed in interviews that the company spent $10 million developing the sensor, but that tells us nothing about what its relationship is to the Fairchild sensor that came out in 2015. And no one said you would get the same results
  21. When they announced the C500 with the 1DC in April 2012, the existing 1DX was not marketed as a video camera. The 1DX II is very different and suggests that they want to sell as many as those 4K machines to P. Bloom and his "cats" before coming out with a new C camera. Now whether it's going to be a 1DC II or a C200 is not so clear. What is clear is that the C line is going to have a huge gap between the C100 II ($4K) and the C300 II ($12K) and I'm sure they are eventually going to fill it with a new release perhaps in 2017 or 2018. That is all pending on Canon discontinuing the 1DC ($5K), the
  22. There are two issues here, one of which you have alluded to in your post. BMD's volume is much higher, but its price point is exponentially lower than RED. Consequently, BMD is a victim of its own success when it comes to these online complaints. It's the ultimate paradox: they offer professional grade tools at consumer and prosumer prices. As a result of mass producing what are otherwise high-end tools for professionals, they have to deal with all kinds of people complaining that something doesn't work right. After all, these CDNG RAW files are not easy to work with and are seriously bee
  23. I'm not sure I agree that RED's problems are "brushed under the rug." At least, that's not what I've seen with recent issues. The Raven problems I've listed here, in addition to a few others (e.g., overheating, black shading, stuck pixels), are reported and discussed extensively on Reduser. In fact, the black sun problem was apparently fixed through firmware very soon after it was reported. That was a case of RED responding in lighting time to a known problem. As for the OLPF flares that I posted above, there is currently no solution to that as it cannot be fixed through firmware (th
  24. Indeed, a lot of the so-called magenta examples on the forums are suspicious to me. They shoot a white wall at f/16 or some ungodly aperture, push the saturation to over 100% in post, and then complain that there is something wrong with the Ursa 4.6k sensor as opposed to their own test methods! Of course, if you do this with any camera, you are not going to get a good result. It's such a waste of time and it takes attention away from those units that may have real problems. As for the price/performance of BMD cameras, there is no argument from me. They are simply the best in their price r
  25. I understand what you're saying. I just don't see much magenta in the same way as some of the more blatant 4.6k examples. There are magenta claims on the 4.6k that are just not credible and require pushing the footage in post to reveal some anomaly, which is otherwise not visible. I'm not talking about that type of suspect activity that would show up any camera! Is there a slight color shift to the Sunday Afternoon image? It does look like it, but I'm not seeing any obvious magenta corners or sides. I know from REDuser that the guy who shot this didn't have any ND or IR filters and shot a
×
×
  • Create New...