HockeyFan12

Late version of the Minolta 35mm f1.4.

I like it as a middle ground between the 35mm f1.4 Nikon AIS and a more "clinical" lens like a Sigma Art lens or Rokinon.

14 hours ago, kye said:

I used to be an IT tech and we used to have to do major services on printers that were old, even if they had low page-counts, because all the rubber in the rollers used to push the paper around had dried out and cracked and no longer worked reliably.

What was interesting was that we had similar printers of similar ages in lots of different buildings with different types of air-conditioning systems (refrigerative, evaporative) and this really impacted the lifetime of the rubber rollers.

Do you know what the correlation was? Humidity or something else? I have a few I want to keep in good condition and am worried too low humidity might dry the bearings out somehow?

I just sold a 28mm f2.0 FD L for I think $99 a year or two ago. 😞

1 hour ago, noone said:

On some Fds, the brass bearings are coated in rubber and the rubber dissolves over time.

It does not affect every copy it seems (or at least some take much longer for it to happen).

It happened with my 85 1.2 L and I just gave the lens away to the bloke I sold my FD24 1.4 L too (that did not have the bearing issue) and I got a Sony GM 85 1.4 from the buyer as well as some cash.

I could still use the FD 85 but it was very annoying that the focus was very loose and the GM 85 1.4 is spectacular to me by comparison so was never going to use it again anyway.

Some of those FD 24 1.4 asphercials have sold for around $20,000 which is plain nuts!

How do the Sony and FD L 85mms compare?

Does anyone know what the ideal humidity is for lenses? I have my FD lenses in a humidity locker now but I'm seeing some signs of aging on them and am worried they're too dry.

1 hour ago, TomTheDP said:

The Alexa obviously is great. Great underexposed, pleasant noise pattern. RED Komodo is really nice as well, as long as you are blackshaded. Though I think there is a bit more color cast when underexposed.

 

Yeah there may be something about rolling shutter that makes motion feel organic. Its so minimal on the Alexa, barely even noticeable when whip panning on longer lenses. The motion on the Komodo feels less organic, maybe global shutter is too perfect? or maybe the global shutter has nothing to do with the "feel" of the motion.

Of course you can't beat global shutter if you are shooting camera strobe lights.

RED's do tend to be nice underexposed. Noise gets heavy but they retain so much info so it doesn't looked crushed like cheaper cameras. Though the color does certainly shift, the OLPF you have in can help(depending what model you have?). Gets confusing with all the different models. I kind of like the Komodo maybe more then all their other models. It's not ARRI tho....

How's the highlight dynamic range on the Komodo compared with S1H or C200 etc.

The Komodo footage looks really really good to me. I like slightly softer footage so I like the 4K crop.

I've heard about setting the shutter speed to 1/40th instead of 1/48th and underexposing and then pushing Red footage to get a more "organic" look.

1 hour ago, independent said:

Oh man, the Red One. I learned to operate with it, and while it was sometimes quite a bitch to work with, no question how amazing it was for digital. Truly groundbreaking. Saved up to buy the Scarlet as a wet hire, switched to Blackmagic and Canon for more commercial work, and now I'm back on Red because they priced it right. 

If you're into the Red One, you already know the answer. Komodo. 6K 16-bit redcode raw and global shutter will give you the most detailed, color-rich, film-like moving image. 

While this forum is centered more around hybrid, consumer cameras, discussions lean almost 99% video. Probably because what people want are accessible cinema cameras. Well, we've never gotten a pro cinema camera within reach until the Komodo.

 

Is there any Komodo raw footage available online? Would love to take a look at it. 

I've always liked the Alexa's grain pattern but it has obviously issues with rolling shutter the Komodo doesn't. Not so much for the feeling of the motion (except for whip pans) more for camera flashes and the like. 

13 hours ago, kye said:

I agree that the early Alexas were emulating a 2K film scan and that with more resolution they are further away from that look, and that the look of cameras is converging.

What is interesting to me is that on the one hand we have resolutions that are going up exponentially, which are taking us further and further away from the resolution / sharpness of film (specifically the resolution/sharpness of the film you would see in the theatre, which was a few generations removed from the original), but on the other hand we have a continued obsession with film-emulation in colour science.

Now, don't get me wrong.  When it comes to the pros, DPs are tempering the high resolution sensors with vintage lenses / filters / haze, and in post the same people that are applying film-emulation in the colour reproduction are also emulating the resolution / halation / gate-weave / grain, which all also reduce the effective resolution of the image.  The pros seem to be taking a more holistic view of the overall look.  

However in the amateur / low-end space it seems to be only about high resolution sensors and lenses and emulating the colour reproduction of film.  It seems very strange.

Keen to hear your thoughts on if you think the target aesthetic is changing, or if people have just lost sight of the whole picture and got swept up in the hype of the camera market..

I don't think there's as much difference between what pros and amateurs are doing as you'd think. But upgrading an entire "pro" workflow takes a lot longer and costs a lot more than an owner-op upgrading one computer and camera. 

The platforms are converging too. I don't think you need that much resolution for cinemas or normal sized tvs – film prints were I think around 720p. For stills you need more resolution, for anything on a computer too with retina displays since it's close to your eyes. On retina screens you need more resolution whether you're on Netflix or YouTube.

Where I would go, if I were a manufacturer, is not hybrid but special-purpose cameras. I think the S1 is the best deal on the market because it does everything well. But it doesn't do anything THAT well. Sony seems to be doing the best job of this with the A7 line but I don't think there's enough differentiation even there. Or maybe convenience wins. I dunno.

I suspect we'll get more and more and better and better "faux" vintage lenses. And better and better LUTs. Consumer-priced Tribe7-style lenses, I think, might find a market. I think we'll probably just get sharper and sharper images with more and more exaggerated "film look" characteristics everywhere else.

I do think if you have a lot of talent and money you can get away with being more subtle. Like Deakins. Or Steve Yedlin. And for long-form content you don't want the image to be distractingly aestheticized anyway imo. But I dunno.

On 2/10/2022 at 7:06 PM, Django said:

Truth is: you will never access and view any Hollywood film/show material in ProRes or RAW. 

You can download sample Alexa footage here and here in raw and in ProRes:

https://www.arri.com/en/learn-help/learn-help-camera-system/camera-sample-footage

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Xs1dS8pMvRw

I can't think of a softer digital camera in use today.

I suspect this is because Arri was originally looking to emulate a 2K film scan. Which is pretty soft.

But they've since discontinued the film emulation matrix.

And added the 3.2k mode, the LF, etc. Each iteration feels less and less like "film."

And with each iteration, Canon and Sony and Red (and lately Panasonic and Black Magic) look more and more like Alexa. Everything looks the same now!

1 hour ago, Michael S said:

I believe the point OP is trying to make is: "A part of the people who are shooting video have specific ideas about what a good image is but I think they are wrong. These people often have their origin in photography more so then cinematography which would explain their preference for specific visual attributes. Cinematographers however have very different criteria to judge an image and should not take their cues from these people."

I do think that photography and cinema do each have their own language. Being a good photographer doesn't make you a good cinematographer or vice versa. An image which works as a photo might not work as part of a narrative sequence and a great scene from a movie might very well fall flat as a still. However I think this distinction has nothing to do with a particular aesthetic. A good photographer may just as well "dirty-up" the image as part of his work. The significant distinction is intent. Professional photographers and cinematographers first think about what they want to achieve with their images and then use anything in their toolbox to achieve that, be it softening, sharpening, fish-eye distortion, rectilinear (distortion), vintage aberrations etc. The not so professional doesn't think it through that much and uses what he has, or simply uses what he saw others using because it worked really well or looked cool without thinking about how appropriate it is for what he is trying to do.

The starting point should be intent, why do I shoot this image? Everything else should follow from that.

And then there is the distinction between those who want to lock a look in camera (so it becomes harder to mess with your intent during post-production) and those who prefer to capture it all as neutral and pristine as possible to allow for maximum flexibility in post (so you can change your intent I guess?).

 

Yeah, I think a lot gets lost in translation on the web. There's a lot of brand loyalty and gear loyalty but that ignores how subjective creative choices can be. For instances a lot of the great cinematographers were bleach bypass processing or using diffusion or even weirder stuff – like Janusz Kaminski on Saving Private Ryan – whereas Deakins was and is looking more for technical perfection. Impossible to say which lens or camera is best without knowing what style you're after.

Then there are workflow issues too.

Fincher has lost me over time with his faux-vintage stuff. I liked Zodiac except for the CG anamorphic lens flares. The faux-anamorphic look in Mindhunter was not for me, but it looked unique. Mank isn't a look I'm really into. But it won an Oscar.

On the other hand, I thought the Lighthouse was totally deserving even though others might feel the opposite. 

So I guess taste is subjective too. 😕 

I think, online in particular, the more specific your question, the better the answers you'll get. 

Has Arri confirmed it's 4K or "4K+"?

I remember the EVA1 is 5.6k or the Alexa is 2.8k because that's around 4K or 2K after debayering. So it could be more.

I used to hate on Netflix and their 4K requirement, but I had the chance to work with some footage that I then saw projected in 2K in a theater and the truth is I'm pretty sure you need more resolution for YouTube (maybe because of compression, maybe because you're so close to the screen) than you do for theatrical films (or tv)

So I guess I get the Netflix requirement.

But yeah I think bigger photo sites means more highlight dynamic range. So Arri will need some new tricks up its sleeve to match the OG Alexa's highlight detail – but I am sure they will.

The Alexa also has a "soft" feel to it. Rumor is from the OLPF. Will be interesting to see if they maintain that.

I always felt my t2i had the best colors, the C100 was a close second, Alexa third.

I think I prefer the GH5 colors too, but I like the S1's highlight detail. I saw these comparisons, which I think are interesting:

Since the "color science" target is presumably set, I think this comparison reveals that the sensors themselves must be quite different. The P4K and P6K I think have somewhat different color, too, which is interesting.

In general the Alexa has a very green/warm bias and imo other cameras less so. The EVA1 feels a little greener and warmer than the S1, so that might be why I prefer its color rendering. More Alexa-like. The 150Mbps S1 codec is fine I think but the ALL-I EVA1 codec has a nice noise texture and a bit more noise, more organic.

I had to deal with IR pollution and moire with the 4.6K and decided to stay away but the P4K and P6K have images that really impress me for the money. But I suspect you need to figure out the right NDs to use (Hoya Solas I bet) with them etc.

I was ready to move to a P4K and speedbooster and sell everything else – I thought the less I owned the more I'd use it. But the S1 is so easy to use and the image is fine if not great that I think I'll stick with that for work and a "b cam." I own some higher end gear for personal use primarily. I rarely shoot professionally anymore or I'd probably own something else.

I've only used the Varicam LT (or 35, I forget) in post but the image is really nice. There's a lot less skew and imo significantly better color than the S1 if I remember right and a better texture to the ProRes files too. It also has a bit more highlight dynamic range, it's really good and has a really good image. Back in the day when it was between that and the F55 for 4K for Netflix or whatever – I preferred the image from the Varicam LT. 

However the color is not similar to Alexa, it's kind of more its own thing, punchier and more vibrant. Also the skin tones tend more magenta (same issue I have with the S1 I suppose), which can be unflattering on pale caucasian skin. Lately imo Sony has caught up – never used an A7S3 but worked a bit with Venice footage and it's fantastic.

I do think the Varicam's image is better than the S1 – the EVA1 occupies a middle ground for me (I prefer the EVA1 color and noise texture to the S1 and S1H for sure) and I have had mixed experience with Black Magic cameras in terms of reliability and IR pollution and moire etc. Great images for the money but less robust in some respects.

All of these differences in image quality pale in comparison with ergonomic and workflow differences, which sadly imo probably matter much more. I bought too much and am selling stuff soon. I'm hoping I use more if I own less.

40 minutes ago, TomTheDP said:

It's hard to compare unless you are shooting same situation same lenses etc... Higher end cameras seem to have a softer look from what I have worked with. Lack of sharpening I'd assume when pitted against more consumer cameras.

I actually find it to exposure similar to my Panasonic S1. Expose normally and you get a bit of grain in darker situations. If you over expose a stop or 2 it looks super clean. The Alexa noise is much nicer than the S1's though IMO.

I agree. I like a little more grain but clients might not.

10 minutes ago, TomTheDP said:

You are referring to the Classic I assume? I'd really like to see the difference between the Classic and the LF in person side by side on my PC. Sharpening does wonders getting it closer to that newer 6k look though.

Back to the topic of the Matrix, despite the rotten reviews, I am going to see it Monday. I am going in expecting it to be very different than the rest of the films and I hope to maybe not hate it.

I don't mean soft in a bad way, I actually like the look. Fwiw Arri has sample footage from the LF on their website.

2 hours ago, fuzzynormal said:

...no one under 20 has ever seen a battle-worn print in a shitty theater.  

Interesting point. I think the 30-something directors getting into the industry today are still into the vintage/film look.

But younger directors might not be. 

You're not the first person I've talked with who goes with a longer shutter angle to get a smoother cadence. However 1/24th is too smooth for my taste. I've seen around 1/40th or 1/36th? Although beware flicker then from 60hz sources (street lights, some fluorescents).

Also, I'm surprised that Alexa looks sharp on the big screen but kind of soft on my laptop? Sometimes I think there's more need for 4K on YouTube than there is in theaters. As we move even more to streaming (already with Netflix), will that push cameras to more and more Ks?

2 hours ago, fuzzynormal said:

Eh.  Just cheap looking.  

Interesting.  My feeling is that film, because it puts an organic sheen on the visuals, helps fiction narrative.   Whereas super clean digital often pushes stuff into uncanny valley.  With digital, the conceit of film-making is too often revealed.  You quickly see the fakeness of things.

Some films use this to an advantage, others make a mistake and embrace the tech only to be betrayed by it.

I'm inclined to agree. But I have a vested interest both in "vintage" gear and lower res, softer footage. 

Vintage lenses I suspect are now so popular in part because of how sharp digital feels compared with film. Maybe sharp digital projection is a factor here too. I suspect for art design and vfx lower res helps too because the softer image and grain help cover up the artifice. Curious if gaffers light differently for film and for digital. I suspect they do.

I also notice that the Alexa has a softer, grainier image than most other digital cameras do. I prefer the grainy Red Dragon image to newer Red cameras (to some extent), I like the Alexa image enough to wonder if I'll prefer it to the next generation Alexa, and I preferred the C300's image to the C300 Mk 2's and F3 to F5 – at least from what I have seen online.

On the other hand, the Wachowskis did such a fun job embracing the digital/fake look with Speed Racer (in terms of cinematography, vfx, and set design alike) that I want to give Resurrections the benefit of the doubt (Still haven't seen it but really looking forward to it.) But whether the look is intentional or not (I'm fairly sure it is), that doesn't mean it looks good.... Lord of the Rings (and Gemini Man) did not have great receptions for HFR. I suspect the new Avatar movies, if they are HFR, will buck this trend, and am look forward to seeing those, too.

19 minutes ago, TomTheDP said:

It really killed me 😅

Good to hear its gone in newer models. The C300 MK2 can record BRAW with the new 12g assist, pretty compelling option. Too bad the C70 can't do any sort of RAW.

I don't know for sure if it's gone but I think it is. It was an issue in the earliest tests too. You can see the horizontal strip from where the brightest patch is.

The EOS R had a similar issue I remember but they fixed it.

https://www.canonrumors.com/firmware-v1-2-0-seems-to-have-solved-a-banding-issue-that-was-present-in-the-canon-eos-r/

3 hours ago, TomTheDP said:

This wasn't actually noise. In the scene I was using haze and thought it was coming from the window blinds. But it was actually just a pattern from the sensor or maybe some kind of weird reflection?? 

 

CMOS smear I think is the term. I saw that around light sources too and it was there in the dynamic range test. I think this has been fixed in the newer models but not sure.

Thanks, everyone. These are both impressive cameras so I think it comes down more to use case than what's objectively better for everyone. The P4K seems a little more niche, but it might be my niche. Maybe I'll buy one and try it out.

If I do end up with a P4K what NDs do you recommend? I have had very bad experiences with IR pollution on the 4.6K.

I thought I wasn't going to do this, but I'm not 100% sold on the color out of the S1 and am thinking of getting something else to replace it. It's great, but feels better suited for corporate gigs than what I do.

The P6K footage I work with impresses me a lot. The lack of skew, smaller files, and option for a speed booster on the P4K (and the price) makes it more attractive to me personally though.

Anyone own both and shot with them side by side? The magenta tint on the S1, lack of grain in HEVC, etc. don't quite do it for me. I'm VERY biased toward the specific colors and texturing coming from Alexa. Even Red is too sharp and clean for me and I want the closest thing that's cheap. Am I just expecting too much at this price point?

I've used these – they work. The tolerances seem good, too, infinity focus is maintained and the focus scale is accurate, which is rare imo with adapters.

But the rear elements will be far enough back that you don't want to mount the lenses on anything with a mirror. 

Also the focus ring placement is annoying with these lenses. 😕

Lastly, I believe these are only compatible with Arri S mount lenses that have a helical. Cookes, for instance, do not, and rotate within the mount. Which is why a simple screw on PL mount converter doesn't work with Cooke Speed Panchros and you need something more like the Visual Products or Les Bosher adapters. Rafcamera sells one, too.

But for PL mount only and not EF. 

But if your lenses have helical focusing (some Schneider, Zeiss, most zooms, etc. I think) I think you're good with the adapters at the link above.

17 hours ago, TomTheDP said:

Yeah having finally shot with an Alexa(owning one) there is definitely something to the image that is just not there on lower end cameras. Definitely more highlight detail than the S1 though its only really about a stop. The noise is a lot more pleasing and uniform. 

Being able to monitor and see an accurate REC709 image is amazing. Its like seeing for the first time lol. 

I really wish cheaper cameras had better monitoring or REC709 lut viewing options. 

Yeah, it's pretty crazy that in some ways (not weight or battery life, admittedly) that the Alexa is the easiest thing to use next to an iPhone. Simple intuitive interface, simple workflows in post. 

Makes me miss the simplicity of t2i neutral, which always looked good. 

I think I prefer the look of Sigma fp footage over the S1 but they seem like they couldn’t be much more different given they’re both L mount and have similar sensors.

S1 V Log dynamic range is outstanding imo and might as well be Alexa-level. The HEVC 6K codec is robust. At base ISO (640) there’s +6 stops of highlight dynamic range (dynamic range over 18% gray) to Arri’s +7.3.

Whereas at base 100 ISO I think the fp has about +2.5 stops of highlight dynamic range and 8 bit raw doesn't let you dig too deep into the shadows either. It also has more aliasing. And no IBIS or EVF.

But where the S1 falls short imo is in color and texture, where the fp seems to excel. I’m not saying the S1 is terrible here, but the color isn’t as nice to me subjectively and the HEVC codec smooths out the noise.

So to me the fp is the ideal A cam for someone (not me) and the S1 is the ideal B cam or low budget production cam for almost anyone. It’s technically on par with Venice or Alexa except for the skew imo and is wildly versatile. 

(At least with Resolve's highlight algorithm enabled, I think the P4K and P6K are almost on par with an Alexa technically, too, and have nice color and texture to the image. But ergonomically I worry they aren’t so hot. FX3 seems nice and maybe the best deal out there but somewhat expensive.)

I have found this to be true in post, too. The bigger the job, the better the resources, the easier it usually is. But one-man-band stuff can pay better I guess, and affords more flexibility I suppose.

18 hours ago, TomTheDP said:

The raw codec is definitely more flexibile color wise though its very similiar in terms of the look. I personally like S1 color better than the GH5. I noticed shadow dynamic range is way way better with RAW. No banding in the shadows even when 6 stops under exposed and it retains the information. It does get noisy but the noise is much more organic than with the internal codec. 

Thanks! Good to know.

One thing I've noticed (not sure how Resolve handles it) is that Adobe's implementation of h265 has a lot of banding and blotchy color compared with the same file transcoded in Finder to ProRes. But transcoding in Finder to ProRes throws off the gamma. Not just true of the S1 but with all h265/HEVC files I've tried so far (granted all from Panasonic cameras).

5 hours ago, thomashogben said:

Thanks Mark, thats correct.. the Ninja V adds a tag to the video in the ProRes files that references it as full range, whilst the other videos are at Video in the clip attributes menue in davinci. Once i change them all to video it corrects the waveform so all the clips show the same exposure.

Out of curiosity, does braw allow highlight recovery as with the P6K and P4K? To me that's kind of their killer app – it gives you as much dynamic range as an Alexa (more or less). And the S1H is almost there even without it...

Also do any improve the color rendering? I'm not in love with the S1H's default colors, or just have trouble working with them. They're different from the EVA1 or GH5, which is confusing. 

1 hour ago, androidlad said:

is at the final stages of development and will be announced soon.

One exciting feature I can share is that the dynamic range is rated at 16 stops (actual ARRI stops, so 2 stops higher than current ALEXA sensor).

I was just wondering about this. 

Isn't full well capacity for 4k a stop less than 2.8k given the same sensor size? 

So should we expect a higher base ISO? Or an over/under favoring shadows more than highlights?