HockeyFan12

2 hours ago, BenEricson said:

Canon claims 15 stops and the sun still renders out a disgusting clipped out BLOB if you shoot towards it. On film, it would be a tint pin point. Black Magic Pocket 6K same story. Immediately looks cheap when you point it towards a bright light source. 

I would like to believe they will figure out how to get more highlight detail, but I really doubt it.

Even the Alexa is this way, if not quite as bad. I think it's just a trade-off with digital.

9 hours ago, Brian Williams said:

I actually just returned a Ninja V back to Amazon today after playing around with it and Prores raw the past few days. I didn’t think the extra weight and size was worth it relative to the IQ bump I was seeing in raw, I just wasn’t blown away. Plus as a longtime Davinci Resolve user who had to jump back to FCP after many years away from it in order to work with Prores raw, I wasn’t happy, not thrilled with the raw control in FCP.

Do you have any comparisons between 6K HEVC and ProRes raw shot at the same time or side by side? Would be curious to see.

1 hour ago, fuzzynormal said:

My work flow is to edit with proxies and let the ultimate transcoding happen upon completion of the project.

This makes more sense, but old habits die hard.

1 hour ago, Parker said:

Edit ready is my go-to transcode software. 

How is the image quality with HEVC? How is the scaling quality? Can you bake in a LUT during transcode?

Been shooting with the S1's new 6K mode. Very good image. I'd like to transcode to either 6k ProRes or 4K UHD ProRes for an entirely online edit (my computer doesn't do so great with 6k, especially HEVC). 

I notice Adobe and Apple seem to have (I am on a Mac) different ways of interpreting HEVC? Or maybe that has improved? What is the best way to get the best transcoded image without a gamma shift or artifacting? I will be using Creative Suite but considering both Media Encoder and Compressor. Thanks.

+1 for C100, S1, and 5D Mark III raw....

....depending on your needs and what you want to use it for...

I like the C100. 😕

P4K/P6K are also excellent.

34 minutes ago, TomTheDP said:

Native ISO on the RED scarlet I own is 400 or 800 depends on who you ask. On the S1 for video its 640 and 4000 in vlog. I actually shot in 640 for the stills as well. I wasn't aware the native ISO for stills was 50. I would have needed a lot more light to shoot at 50 iso. 

Some of the other picture profiles have different dual ISOs. I think 50 ISO for stills and 640 ISO for V LOG are exposing the sensor the same, but the curve that's applied in camera or when developing is very different.

I think Red is always exposing at the same ISO (except Gemini), and the ISO you rate it at is how the picture is developed. I wasn't a fan of Red's color but the newer development software looks great to me.

25 minutes ago, kye said:

I understand what you're saying, but would suggest that they are only simple to deal with in post because they've had the most work put into them to achieve the in-camera profiles.  

I think this is about right. A lot of it must be in-camera processing. The Alexa Plus draws >100 watts and Apple's latest iPhone is nearly as fast as my laptop. With older Reds, you need to develop on your computer because they're not fast enough to process the footage properly I believe. ArriRAW really doesn't look much better than Arri ProRes to me.

3 minutes ago, BenEricson said:

I own the C70 (Same Sensor.) I think the potential for nice color is definitely there. Really clean sensor. The color work flow Canon has provided is really terrible though. The LUTs are 6 years old and were built for the original C300 Mkii. Nothing has been updated. The LUT pack for C70 even includes LUTs for gamma profiles that no longer exist. (Clog2 / BT.709)

I think at this point, when a cell phone can shoot nice photos and videos, the camera manufactures really should be focusing on a solid post work flow that produces beautiful, consistent results or they will lose customers. 

I like what I've seen from the C70 a lot so that is discouraging to read. I had a C200 for a minute but the Canon Log 2 image was too flat and the h264 image looked worse than my C100's so I never really warmed up to it. 

I like reading interviews with Roger Deakins and he has no idea how digital cameras work... but I get it. It's literally just iPhones and Alexas where the workflow is this simple. Log C has pretty good dynamic range to say the least but the default LUT adds a lot of contrast and clipping. So you can just go with that and it looks fine, or you can grade by eye and get some flexibility. But it's relatively simple. It's a little frightening to me that the simplest cameras around are iPhones and Alexa Classics.

$150-$220 USD.

4 minutes ago, BenEricson said:

I think the color in general has always suffered as the light sensitivity gets better. Look at the original Black Magic Pocket, Digital Bolex, Arri Alexa. None of the those are lowlight cameras but in the right light they look really really good.

+1

I don't trust everything DXOMark publishes, their measurements indicate better color depth over time...

Whereas to my eye the color from my Digital Rebel XT is better than the color from my S1. Anyway it doesn't matter if they're right if I can't see it or make it work. But there are thinner bayer filter dyes apparently and I think it is leading to a "change" in color.

Oddly though I felt C300 Mk II was a step down for color from C300 Mk 1, F5 was a step down from F3, etc. but C300 Mk III looks like an improvement and Venice color is excellent, FX6 looks promising too but yet to work with it. So we might be heading back in the right direction.

55 minutes ago, noone said:

I just find it unusual.

Yeah, I don't have more than the slightest clue what's going on, but I think V Log 640 ISO is a lower ISO with a big digital push. Anyway the S1 dynamic range (not sure if you own one or not) is excellent.

20 minutes ago, BenEricson said:

Yeah, those Rec709 grades with like 7 or 8 stops of dynamic range look so rich and vibrant. Film print style. Even 35mm film shot right now has a lot less punch than it used to. 

I always though the baked in profiles on the C300 Mkii or maybe the 1DC or 1DX look really really nice. Yes, you have to be more intentional with your exposing but the results are really nice.

Not all log footage is the same though. Flat film scans are incredibly easy to grade. You don't need any LUTs, just a standard correction will look really good and natural. 

+1 

Also worth noting that the default Alexa LUTs Arri and Adobe distribute throw out about as much extra highlight detail as the Alexa has over other cameras. On a standard display you're going to struggle to have a 14 stop image that looks good. I miss t2i neutral more and more.

But it is weird, one knock against the S1 is the GHX series has better skin tones for some reason imo...

1 hour ago, noone said:

Any idea what the minimum ISO would be for the RED cameras?  I see the S1 gets its 14.5 stops at ISO 50 but it takes quite a dip at ISO 100 (though still very good 13.66).      Are people shooting videos with the S1 at ISO 50?

Just curious.

By definition, any digital sensor (except Foveon) has 2.5 stops over 18% gray at base ISO, and that's not accounting for different channels clipping before others. Some digital cameras use 12.5% gray as middle gray to get 3 stops. The S1 has +6 stops at base 640 ISO. So I'm guessing what that actually is is base ISO (50-ish) with a digital push.

Of course, the read out for video is apparently 12 bit, which should limit the camera to 12 stops, but Panasonic claims 14, so I feel like we just don't have enough information (or I don't have enough technical knowledge) to make any conclusions based on specs alone. But I speculate 640 ISO V Log is base ISO with a digital push. This is why the dual native ISOs change with scene file or picture style or whatever it's called I suspect.

17 minutes ago, Stab said:

In which profile? V-LOG as well?

I've only used the S1 and S1H (and EVA1), but I remember someone posted a comparison of the S1 and S5 and V Log was more green on the S5.

Which is good, the EVA1 has better color than the S1 in part because it's lacking such a strong magenta tint:

Of course, compared with Alexa footage, everything looks magenta!

Has anyone noticed a shift in color? The S5 footage seems a bit less magenta (in a good way) than S1 footage. Has Panasonic matched the S5 with the new 2.0 firmware update?

9 minutes ago, TomTheDP said:

I'd assume the Venice doesn't have the dynamic range of an Alexa. Though it seems to be accepted on higher end productions/work. The price of it is certainly high end haha.

I am really really close to getting a Ninja V. Seems like it would solve the texture issue with 4K 60p on the Panasonic. Though less noise isn't always the worst thing tbh. 

Curious what your findings are if you do get one. If the color and texture feel any different. 6K full frame raw sounds pretty wild.

I think the Venice has a bit less DR but the color is excellent and the noise texture is really organic. I was hoping the A7SIII would be a mini-Venice but I think the processing and noise texture aren't quite there. 

The Venice has a great look, pretty similar to Alexa LF but a bit sharper. I have noticed that cameras with on-chip autofocus (DPAF or whatever the A7S3 has) tend to have a blotchier shadow noise texture. Venice has a nice noise texture. S1 seems nice, too, but the HEVC codec smooths out all the noise. 

Alexa dynamic range is no longer that much better than the competition. It's largely that Alexas are used on sets with higher budgets. Some of the easiest footage to work with in post, though, imo.

I used to own a C100 Mk 1 and shot a bit with C300. Love them both! C100 ergonomics are better imo but codec is weak and EVF is terrible. Haven't used Mk2. But it should improve on low light, EVF, and codec....

Only thing I'd add is it's nearing the end of its lifecycle and price might go down.

Or up. Used C100 Mk1 with DPAF sell for more than the $1299 they were EOL'd at IIRC. I think it is a winner.

6 hours ago, Lux Shots said:

Everyone has always known the S5/S1/S1H take the full sensor and down-sample to 4K.

What's your source on this? If this is what's happening why is there less rolling shutter in 4K than in 5.9k?

1 hour ago, Cliff Totten said:

No,...I'm saying the S1 does a 5.9k sensor readout, every day, all day long. 5.9k full width read window is it's normal every day scan. So, the "sensor" does 5.9k with no thermal problems. It always has from day one, even when saving 4k files, the sensor reads at 5.9k. The file saved is oversampled 4k from a 5.9k readout.

The new firmware takes that same 5.9k sensor readout and instead of saving that file to 4k, it will now saves in to a 5.9k file and places a 15 min cap on it.

The 5.9k readout, 5.9k image processing and 5.9k raw out to HDMI continues with no time limit or thermal issues after the 5.9k internal file ends.

Im 99.99% certain this 15min limit is only a firmware cripple to protect the S1H

What's your source on this?

I have noticed that, while shooting 51,200 ISO, the LCD will go from being very noisy to relatively clean once I hit record and I can't imagine any other reason than it changing readout modes.

4K also has a slightly different feel to it than 6K to me, but I could be imagining things. It might be the different codec. Still, 4k is noisier and I've seen other tests online that corroborate that. Also the rolling shutter is different (higher) in 5.9k than 4k on the S1H, and the "per pixel" modes on the S1H imply the other modes aren't.

Also the S1H body isn't much larger, but it is larger and I think it has a fan inside it that the S1 lacks, not sure about that though.

It might be intentionally crippled but I don't think the sensor is doing full read out all the time. In fact I think 5D2 video first started when engineers noticed they could just capture the low res live view readout and record it. The 5D2 definitely was not doing 30fps 5k readout all the time in live view.

3 minutes ago, Robert Patts said:

I assume VLOG, as the review I read stated "V-Log or V709 will be selectable on the Live View monitor during RAW output.".

It does not matter...as Raw is Raw...and a simple CST node will get you where you need to be. No?

I'm not great with Resolve, but in my experience color space transforms don't turn the look of one camera into the look of another. I like Black Magic's color more and have been dreaming of a FF P6K-type camera.

For BRAW, is the color Panasonic V Log or Black Magic Gen 5? 

I like swirly bokeh but I think it can get a bit distracting. It's from field curvature I think. The Cooke S1 lenses have it, S2/S3s 32mm and longer do, too. But they have very little CA and I think it's a nice look. 

Signature Primes are interesting because they don't look too "clinical" to me but they look almost perfectly corrected. Sigma Art does feel more "clinical" to me but for the price has an amazing image.

Signature Pries to me perform well and look good. I think Master Primes are supposed to be a bit too "digital" with the Alexa, but I am not familiar with how this combination looks. 

What lenses do you think perform well but look bad?

Hmmm... 

I basically like how Sigma Art looks. But I agree.

What do people think looks clinical in a "bad" way?

Or what do you think has "bad" rendering? 

5 minutes ago, noone said:

I like using my 18-55 Canon APSC lens but I use it as a FF Sony E almost throw away (24-55mm coverage).

It is with someone else right now but when i get it back i want to try it at f32 as a macro lens (extension tubes).

Not sure i buy into the "clinical look" thing and maybe to me it is more about a "normal" or usual view (IE close to what the eye sees and with deep DOF) so anything that departs from the "normal" is no longer clinical??   Does that make sense?    Do people ever attribute a clinical look to lenses that completely blur the background Good or bad bokeh)?   Are very wide?  Very long? Tilt/shift?

I think so. Master Primes are clinical and I remember incorrectly, it was the 10-18mm Canon zoom that I recall being a good performer but just feeling flat. The 18-35mm Sigma was clinical but felt good. The 55-250mm STM Canon also feels a bit flat to me but is a great performer. Maybe because they're slow zooms. Dunno.

Thanks, everyone. I used to own a 18-35mm f1.8 and I agree. I think it looks good, but very neutral.

What's "clinical" in a bad way. I remember my 18-55mm Canon zoom felt this way. I never believed in the whole "too many elements and the lens is flat" thing until I compared a few cheap Canon zooms (which felt "flat") with old vintage Nikkors (which performed poorly, but had more "depth"). I also compared them with a 18-35mm Sigma Art, and it had good performance and a good look, too. Sort of in between, depending on what you want the best of both worlds.

What's clinical in a bad way?

I haven't tried a lot of new stuff. Curious what people think fits this description.