KnightsFan

1 hour ago, Lenscamera said:

what does BM stand to gain?

I'm not super knowledgeable about Businesses, but my 2 cents: Unlike many other camera companies, Blackmagic is private. Shareholders require that a large public company GROW in order to make share prices rise, while a private company can stay about the same size without much consequence. So Blackmagic has a lot more leeway to pursue a philosophy, even if it makes them less money in the short term.

What they stand to gain in the long term is to make their name synonymous with innovation, the way that Arri or Leica are synonymous with quality.

Exciting! I can't wait to see what the magic lantern people do next.

46 minutes ago, Snowbro said:

How much of a difference is there between 8 bit 4:2:0 & 8 bit 4:2:2? I havent been able to find much info on it, just 4:2:2 10 bit. What I did find, said there was barely any difference, so I am curious. 

4:2:2 has double the chroma resolution compared to 4:2:0. How much that matters varies.

The best way to see the perceived quality difference is to start with some high quality 4:4:4 footage and then render it as 4:2:2 and as 4:2:0. Try a variety of scenes, try color grading both or doing green screen work. You can come to your own conclusions--always better than listening to what other people claim!

10 minutes ago, thebrothersthre3 said:

So even though we are not entirely sure what they mean by 11.2 stops of dynamic range, we know its more then their listing of the GH5S or A7SII, and close to the FS5. So it gives you a general idea lol.

That's what I'm saying--and naturally there's a margin of error, and some outright mistakes will be made, in addition to a switch in methodology (I'm trying to look up when that happened. Perhaps it goes along with the different format of the chart?). But it's outright impossible to compare camera A to camera C by judging BOTH an A vs. B by one blogger, and then a B vs. C by a completely different person.

12 minutes ago, thebrothersthre3 said:

The E2 looks really awesome, but I don't think their color science is going to be very good and I suck at grading. Fuji it is

I agree the color so far doesn't look as good as Fuji or Blackmagic. I enjoy color grading, though. Tbh, until about a week ago, I discounted the E2 as a novelty because the graded test footage looked terrible. However, I downloaded some sooc zlog, played around in Resolve and was shocked at how easy it was to get a really good image. Fuji, Blackmagic, and ZCam are my top choices at the moment, but we'll see what other announcements get made. Fortunately, I won't be upgrading until December or January, so I've got plenty of time to see reviews and such! This is a great year to be almost-but-not-quite upgrading.

@sanveer Does anyone do actual scientific tests though? I understand that C5D is suspect, but afaik they are the only ones who do actual lab tests on many different cameras under (supposedly) the same test scenarios.

@IronFilm and @sanveer I meant where do you get your dynamic range info from  if not from cinema5d, who?

36 minutes ago, IronFilm said:

Anyway, they so often get things so very wrong, that I'd take anything they do with a very big grain of salt!

Naturally!

1 minute ago, sanveer said:

Maybe you haven't been observing Cinema5D long enough (and carefully enough). They contradict almost Every Dynamic Range figure of their own. Meaning that one month it will be fine figure for the Arri Amira, and another month, it will be something else. This applies yo their figures for almost All Cameras. They will contract their own figures on the new Fuji too. Just give them enough time. 

Good to know! Who do you get your info from?

11 minutes ago, IronFilm said:

Would be even better if someone other than Cinema5D did it....

Haha Maybe. What I like about them is they have done multiple cameras with the same methodology, so you can actually compare different brands. Do you know of any more reliable place that does the same? I'd love to see a variety of tests.

8 hours ago, nigelbb said:

It costs £2K & is sold as a cinema camera & has 120fps@4K in 150Mbps h.264 but is a one trick pony with literally no other feature that isn't better served by the BMPCC4K.

H.265, actually (big difference!). You should download some of the footage, it has very few artifacts. ProRes 4k 120 fps would make HUGE files. It's also got some interesting deep learning features that most of us won't use, but looks unique. You can also monitor and control the camera via an iPhone app attached via USB-C, so it may completely eliminate the need for an external monitor.

I don't know about the P4K, but the E2 is supposed to use an all-analog gain structure, so dynamic range should by constant across the entire ISO range (though I assume that noise levels will increase). Which brings us to:

6 hours ago, AlexTrinder96 said:

16 stops of dynamic range? If only!

 

 

It's actually about 13.5, which is in line with the other cameras' claims. The 16 claim comes from their WDR mode. I'm not sure how it works, but I think it's doing some fancy double frames or something (I'm sure they explained somewhere on Facebook). They say it can introduce artifacts with moving objects in WDR mode.

I hope some third party like Cinema5D does an objective dynamic range test.

3 hours ago, newfoundmass said:

I wish they'd have put the camera into capable hands for the footage they've released instead of what they've put out. It really hasn't sold the camera and hasn't given us a very good idea of what this camera is capable of. 

I agree... Somewhat. They haven't released any "wow" footage done by pros on a set, colored by pro. However, they have released a lot of sooc files that I think show off what the camera can do, you've just got to do some work on your own color grading. It doesn't look as good as say the p4k, but for a fraction of the data rate it's a fair trade in my book.

8 minutes ago, Andrew Reid said:

The way I am thinking right now, in this rather down mood I am in, is why do I even bother, quite honestly. Hours and hours and hours of work is not even worth a message of support from my own followers.

You've got our support! I understand why you're upset. It's reasonable to not buy the camera--after all it's your money, and your time. Maybe Blackmagic forgot, maybe they did it completely out of malice. Either way, it's not worth getting into a fight about.

Just now, Cliff Totten said:

Global shutter readouts are great, but generally speaking, the price you pay for it is more limited dynamic range. Nothing is free and rolling shutter typically beats global shutter in DR.

As we invent better sensors, at some point we have enough dynamic range and should focus on global shutter. I'm glad to see innovation on both fronts.

Well that is certainly exciting! Global shutter seems to be a tough one. Blackmagic promised it and ten backed off, and I seem to remember other manufacturers doing the same thing. Let's hope Sony can do it without compromising other qualities, and that it becomes a standard feature in the future.

Welcome to the forum!

Nice work! Right now I don't have access to a calibrated monitor, so take my comments with a grain of salt. Also, since I don't really know what mood/story you are going for, take my comments with a big helping of salt! Overall, your grades are appealing and within realism. Nothing too stylized or extreme. Since I don't know what your goals with these grades are, I can't really say whether you've done well, so here are some thoughts on what I might do differently.

Sequence 1: Looks nice! Perhaps a tad yellow/orange--I'm looking at the white boat in the foreground. I feel like you could up the saturation a little as well. Compositionally, I can't really focus on any boats as they are lost in the jumbled rigging, but the mountain draws my eyes. If that's intended, I'd try especially putting more saturation in the mountain, and maybe even add more contrast.

Sequence 2: This one looks a little purplish. The concrete seems to have an unnatural tint. I think you could make the boat's red stand out just a little more as well.

Sequence 3: This is another one where I think it gets too yellow. I do like how you've made the sky pop out a little more, but that seems to also be pushing the boats away from white too much. Speaking of which, a little more contrast might make those bright white boats stand out more from the dark background of trees and mountains.

Sequence 4: Another one that's more purple than maybe natural, but I like it. Again I'd up the contrast. Composition wise, it might be nice to be a little tighter on the lighthouse and those islands, perhaps by cropping out the left side of the screen. That way you could really make that red roof stand out from the blue water and sky. Just a thought.

Sequence 5: A little too much teal for me. I'd also love if the sky was a little more saturated. Out of curiosity, what ISO was this?

Sequence 6 and 7 are pretty similar to 5.

Sequence 8: Not much to say here. It looks good, both before and after. Maybe brighten the boat in the foreground a little bit.

Overall looks good! Like I said, this is more a list of things I might do differently, rather than criticisms.

@andrgl Here's an interesting article about RX and non-RX lenses for Bolex.

http://cinetinker.blogspot.com/2014/12/rx-vs-non-rx-lenses.html

I'm pulling some quotes from the section about the aberrations caused by using non-RX lenses (designed with no glass prism) on an RX camera (which has a 10mm glass prism between the lens and the film).

Quote

The problem is that the prism causes the outer light rays from a lens to be bent at different angles to the central ones, so they don't converge at the same point, creating blurry images at the film plane. These aberrations are what the RX lenses have been designed to counteract.

Quote

The aberrations are more pronounced at wider apertures, because this is when the light rays pass through the edges of the lens elements as well as the centre, exhibiting the most variation in how they are bent.

@Cinegain I'm seriously considering it, once it's seen some real world use and there are reviews.

14 minutes ago, hijodeibn said:

For your case, I guess you are using a Sony, so no need to change...

 

Samsung, actually. Sony a73 does seem like a decent option, but not enough of an upgrade to justify the cost.

Just now, Django said:

Yeah but an APS-C camera can't go FF.. as for  sports shooting, not sure EOS R would be a good choice to begin with for that anyways with the slow burst rate.

Nor can a ff camera with an apsc lens... So you put a ff lens on and we're back to where we started with the changing fov.

another reason not to buy! I'm not a pro. I can only afford one body that's a good all rounder. Probably other people can get dedicated cameras for sports, video, astrophotography, etc. I do a little bit of each for fun, and I bet most consumers, like me, only want one body.

if the eos r works for you, great! But the crop is a deal breaker for me and (apparently) many others on this forum and elsewhere. And it's not the fact that it's cropped that bothers us--many of us are interested in the p4k--it's that as a hybrid stills and video camera, it fails to deliver what we need from a hybrid.

"but just move back" you said? On a recent shoot I was balancing on a tiny rock on the bank of class 5 Rapids, shooting kayakers. Nowhere to move back. No time to change lenses. I happily used my nx1 to shoot 4K, 28 megapixel stills at 15fps, and nice 120fps hd. All with a consistent fov. Seems like a really poor deal to spend 2-3xthe money on a camera that can't do any of that.

again, if it works for you, then that is fantastic!  I'm Just explaining why it doesn't work for me.

11 minutes ago, hijodeibn said:

The right tool for the job, certainly the Canon R is not the tool for sports, there are many other options out there, for fiction, run and gun on the street without attracting much attention, I am sure the R will work fantastic....

Right tool for the right job is only applicable to people with enough money to buy a lot of tools!

if you can drop $2300 on a camera that has limited use as an all round photo camera, and requires two different sets of lenses (at the wide end) to shoot in stills vs. video, go for it.

2 minutes ago, Django said:

Photo mode recognizes your EF-S lenses and automatically crops so you won't really notice a difference when switching between video & stills with APS-C glass.

As for using stills & 4k video with FF glass at an event, it really isn't that hard even if you absolutely need similar FoV, just either step a few feet backwards, pull back on your zoom lens... or change lenses (that is what an ILC is for!). Finally there is also a 8MP still grab feature from the 4K feed if necessary.

if you auto crop to apsc, just buy an apsc camera. It will be cheaper and have higher resolution than the cropped portion.

changing lenses takes time, which you don't have when shooting things like sports.

30 minutes ago, Nikkor said:

The problem is that you have to use fullframe lenses not m43 lenses (ef-s lenses are mostly crap)

Exactly. And If you do use apsc lenses for video, and then switch to photo mode for a quick snap of the action, you won't be happy.

crop sensors are fine, forced switching between crop and full frame on the same body is not. It's unthinkable to shoot both photos and 4K video at the same event on this camera.

45 minutes ago, Charbax said:

- It looks like it can't do advanced high profile H265 real-time encoding. Does the H265 options provide lower bitrates which is the promise of H265? What does it do in H264 and what does it do in H265 exactly and at which bitrates for each?

I want all frame rates and resolutions with H265 options at half the bitrate of H264 for the same quality. Is that not what it can do? Does it force you to use H265 for IPB? (without even saving a lot on the bitrate?)

This is my big question as well. It seems strange that in some cases, H.265 bitrate is twice that of H.264 (4k Long GOP, for example). I wonder if these are the only bitrates available, or just the maximum?

Either way, I am glad to see H.265 filtering into the specs of a handful of cameras, even if not fully fledged.

6 minutes ago, IronFilm said:

Haven't heard much about the Z Cam E2 on the forums lately

No, surprisingly not. The other day I did some digging to see if it was still a thing, downloaded some test footage (ungraded, sooc) and really loved it. Tbh, from what I know so far, the Z Cam looks like the clear winner for me. However, the Fuji can take photos as well, so it would be MUCH cheaper since I could sell my old camera instead of add on a dedicated video cam. I'm looking forward to playing with footage from the Fuji!

1 minute ago, gnomesteel said:

What's the workflow like with H.265? I'd imagine it's pretty hard on your workstation while editing. 

I can sort of edit 4k H.265 without transcoding in Resolve (I have a decent computer), but I usually create small, 2Mbps HD proxies in H.264. If I edit in Premiere, I export the XML into Resolve otherwise just edit the proxies in Resolve itself. When I'm ready to color, I use the Conform from Bins feature to switch out the proxies for the originals, do my color work, and export. If I need to go back and make changes, I can always Conform from Bins back to the proxies, edit some more, and then Conform my way back to the OG files. It's really very easy, all things considered, and saves terabytes of space over the course of a few projects, compared to Prores.

Wow! I've known for a while that I'll have to upgrade my camera perhaps in 2019. Since its announcement, the z can e2 has been the only new camera that's seriously interested me. But Fuji is really looking great! This is going to be a hard decision after all.

14 minutes ago, Django said:

I guess you were shooting 1080p because XH1 has a 4K crop. In fact it's almost the exact same crop (1.7x). It's less noticeable with native lenses cuz they're made for APS-C but it wouldn't be the ideal candidate for that type of job, again unless you're shooting 1080p in which case the EOS R would also not give you a crop in between stills/video.

 

Yeah, the problem I have with the crop is switching back and forth, not that it's there. It's easy enough to take an apsc photo and then take an apsc (or slightly smaller) video. It's a lot harder to take a full frame photo, and then immediately take an apsc video on the same lens at the same event.

Of course, i could take cropped photos so that they match the video but then why get ff at all?

4 minutes ago, mercer said:

The problem is that the biggest critics were never going to buy one anyway. And if you look at the video specs, other than the 4K crop and no IBIS, the camera is pretty damn good and beats a lot of other camera’s offerings. 

I can't speak to other critics. I was optimistic earlier in this thread, before the specs came out, since I've liked every canon I've shot with.

the 4K crop is a deal breaker. The only reason I'd upgrade from my apsc is to get full frame. I shoot photos an video, sometimes in quick succession. I can't have my current lens behave differently depending on the mode I'm in. I'd rather just stick with apsc. If I didn't shoot any video then it wouldn't matter to me, of course, but most members on eoshd care about video. 120 fps being in 720 is also a downgrade for me, and that's a feature I've used on almost every project in the past year an a half.

so on the other hand I see the Nikon z6, which has much more of what I need, for less money. I'm not mad at canon or anythin stupid like that, but for me it is very clear that the eos r is not worth the money.

1 minute ago, shorty15 said:

So buy those competing cameras. Canon clearly has no interest in hybrid cameras. Time to move on. Panasonic and Sony have you covered. 

yeah, unfortunately they don't. If I see a Sony or Panasonic (or canon) that looks like a worthwhile upgrade, I will! I'm pretty happy with what I've got at the moment, I just like keeping up with the news.