kye

This thread is mostly for me, but I figured that I'd post it instead of just making my own notes as it might be of casual interest to someone. Read at your own peril - this will likely fall down every rabbit-hole available. Still with me? Ok, to catch up to where I am, watch and study these videos.... If you're not lusting after the $40,000 Zeiss Master Anamorphic after watching the first one then go watch them all again before proceeding. I've just sold my car (wasn't using it) so more money for lenses! I use a GH5 and own the Voigtlander 17.5mm f0.95 which I really like, and I've settled on having a super-wide ~8mm and probably ~40mm lengths. The Voigt is pretty rubbish wide-open, but when compared to F2 lenses the Voigt is already stopped-down two stops when they're wide open, so if you're stopping it down a bit then there's real advantages, plus if I ever need the extra exposure (I shoot in available light so that happens sometimes) or want to have the shallow DoF (which also happens) then I can do that. I own the SLR Magic 8mm F4 which is an ok lens, isn't that great optically but isn't terrible either, but it's a drone lens so the ergonomics are completely rubbish. I also own both the Konica Hexanon 40mm f1.8 and Helios 58mm F2 plus an m42 SB. I am not a fan of the swirly bokeh of the Helios (although using it on MFT gets rid of the majority of it on the edges of the frame), and I used the 40mm wide-open on a recent trip and it did not perform well, to put it mildly. Soft as hell as well as all sorts of nasty aberrations. The Voigtlander 42.5mm f0.95 would be stopped down two stops when rendering the same image, so that's something to consider. I've previously identified that I wanted the Laowa 7.5mm F2 lens and was happy with the Konica, but after the Konica had its minor meltdown I'm now wondering if I should replace it with the Voigtlander, or what I should do. Speaking with some pros on other forums about lenses, and especially the guys that know what they're doing in post, the advice was to capture the highest resolution image you can and degrade it in post, or use something like a Black Pro Mist filter. Before I spend any real money on some lenses I figured doing some real research and working out what I really want might be in order, thus this line of thinking and this thread. Next step is to study cine lenses and see what they are actually doing, even just as a reference point.

Looks good @BTM_Pix.... (the stabilisation, not the inclement weather!) I'd also suggest that if it makes that much difference then you can probably get more performance by adjusting it further. I did a series of stabilisation rig tests by having a path that I would walk through the house, so I'd make a change, do a circuit, make another change, do another circuit, etc. Then sit down and review the footage. Every clip began facing a mirror so it was obvious what setup was being tested in that clip.

Ah, well, if we're comparing RAW to compressed anything then it's a different ballgame! In terms of that highlight recovery - I'm not convinced. More likely the camera was shooting the first thing but the ISO settings that the camera recorded in metadata would have blown the image all to hell, then the NLE gets the file, applies the ISO blowing the highlights well and truly, then you adjust them down and voila - the signal that was recorded. This protects against camera operator error, but not if you actually blow out the image. Try shooting in full sun wide open without an ND at base ISO then try and "recover" the file... 12-bit won't save that!!

I tested it in real life, filming my own test footage, including pushing and pulling heavily in-post as well as doing only light grading, but the differences really weren't that much. I'm curious to hear what that difference is actually useful for, not just a subjective impression. Oh, and did you test the Canon 12-bit against Canon 10-bit? Otherwise we're introducing other factors into the question.

I'm curious how much extra you feel that 12-bit gives you over 10-bit? I definitely agree that 10-bit is a decent jump up from 8-bit, but when I was playing with ML I did a bunch of tests comparing 10, 12 and 14-bit RAW and didn't really see any useful differences above 10-bit. I'm not saying there was none, but I can't really think of when those differences would really matter.

Wasn't it meant to somehow integrate with their cinema cameras? Or be able to take their accessories? I recall it had some kind of accessory port and the implication was that you could take the RED accessories and rig up the phone, either so that the phone was attached to a camera or that the phone was the camera but with extra bits attached. So much of the promise was that it wasn't really a phone, but would actually be modular in some way? What was the port actually for?

I saw in a recent YT video by Mark Bone he mentions that he's using his monitor as a light source for the video. What CRI is a monitor likely to have if it's been calibrated and is of reasonable quality? Does the fact that it can produce the entire sRGB spectrum (or even a wider gamut) mean that the panel in it has a high CRI? I'm curious because I do camera tests every now and then and would like a powerful and high CRI light source, and if I already own a really large one then that would be very very handy!!

I'd be interested in reading about it. Partly because with all the hype, cryptic teaser media releases, and my general lack of interest, I still don't actually know what it is or what it does, apart from underwhelm people!

Same reason that they're not all screaming at Canon for lack of un-cropped 4K... Every brand has weaknesses, to expect otherwise is naive. I love it when Canon moves slightly, all the people that believe in pixies, santa, the perfect camera, unicorns, the company not driven by profit, and other mythical creatures all appear and emote all over the internet!!

Nice! Get a GH5, some half-decent lenses, and a smoke machine and you're half-way there already

Personally, I thought The Breakup with Vince Vaughn and Jennifer Aniston was so true to life that it was terrifying, but I somehow get the impression that's not what you're asking for.......

With only a week left to enter, how are we all doing? Who has films on the way? I have two lenses I haven't shot with yet, although one has an infinity focus problem that I haven't resolved, and no opportunities to shoot in sight... ???

I'm curious about why it has to be FF? I like the FF look, but with great lenses that is possible on APSC or MFT, and when you factor in the price of this camera, the best lenses money can buy aren't actually that much money.

Let the hype begin. ....meanwhile I'll be over here with my GH5, which even with a full set of Voigtlander f0.95 primes would still be cheaper ???

Well, I don't know about you, but if I was a college-age girl living alone on an industrial farm I would definitely keep a baseball bat next to my front door! You never know what the yokels will do when they get all liquored up!!

Yes, that holds up very well.. even with very subtle tones on her face there's no visible banding or artefacts (even on your upload).

Great tips - I binge lots of film-making and travel film-making on YT but these aren't tips I've heard before, so this is really cool. I like the idea of "intermediate" tips, most channels don't get past using a ND. Makes me wonder what you would consider an advanced tip!

Looks like something happened....

Good points. For the test I did for myself I shot 4K h264, scaled some shots, exported in h264 (at a higher bitrate) and then uploaded to YT in 4K, as that is my workflow. Obviously if you're shooting RAW and delivering in Prores HQ then your thresholds for what is perceptible will be different. I was simply doing it to see if it mattered to me, and how far I could push things in how I shoot, hoping that it would matter less and I could use digital zoom to space my primes further apart and cover more zoom range with the same number of lenses. Fun stuff.

I think satisfaction levels are about comparing what you have to what you want. I think everyone probably always wants more, but it's about priorities. Do I want a camera the size of a GoPro Hero 5 Session, lenses that perform like Zeiss Master Primes, output files that look like an ARRI 65, and the whole thing to cost $100 with free shipping? Yes. But the point is that all that happens in the context of all the rest of what we're doing when we shoot. I think most real shooters are concerned with the total package of what they deliver, and if the camera isn't in the top 5 issues that are holding us back then we're not focused on it, and if asked we'll say we're satisfied. Everyone wants more, we just differ by how much we want it.

Great stuff! I can see some cool lens stuff going on. These lenses work really nicely at night!

Nice! Great work

https://noamkroll.com/why-i-just-bought-the-new-sigma-fp-mirrorless-camera-for-filmmaking/

I'm considering posting a blind test where some of the shots are digitally zoomed to various amounts and seeing which shots people could identify, and how much zoom was evident. What sort of shots should I include? I'm imagining if I included things like close shots of plants with a back-light to highlight all the tiny hairs and textures? I did a quick test like that for myself (thus the reference to me doing more tests than I share here) and I found that large digital zooms were visible but smaller ones were not.