KnightsFan

Imo we've plateaued in what a camera can deliver, and I would prefer companies start looking at ecosystems instead of specs. There are so many ways we can creatively apply modern technology. And I'm not talking about AI or any of that crap, I just mean quality of life improvements.

Look at Samyang's Cine AF lenses. I haven't used them so I don't know about their image or build quality (they are suspiciously cheap...), but the innovation of switching between normal fly-by-wire AF in a tiny form factor, and then popping a front piece on and having proper hard stops and a 300 degree throw is amazing. Imagine putting a wireless receiver in a front piece for a follow focus without a gear or rails or rigging. There's no reason that approach can't be used for expensive, high quality lenses. There's also no reason that can't be done completely in body either by companies that create both bodies and lenses.

Panasonic has my respect for putting 32 bit into an XLR adapter for sure. They should make one that also has a wireless receiver and digital transmission of that recording from an XLR or lav module. Synced, clipless, wireless audio directly in the video file would be amazing.

Obviously everyone talks about NDs. I don' think there's room in a FF hybrid to fit an ND module with a clear option.

One thing that was an eye opener when I owned a Z Cam was how good their app was and how much I relied on it. Wireless low latency monitoring and control with no extra boxes or batteries. It's sort of unbelievable that they are the only camera company that nailed their app.

None of those suggestions are all that difficult. None require any technological innovation. But I would personally find those much more useful than incremental AF or dynamic range improvements past the excellent offerings we already have.

I like the Panasonic S5, which I found used for about $800 (€717). If you keep an eye on used markets, you might get pretty close to your budget. Low light video was one of my considerations and I'm very happy with it. It will be easy to keep any existing EF lenses, too.

I won't pretend to have used enough cameras to say its the best option, but if you'd like some night photos in Raw or Jpg so you can judge for yourself, I'm happy to grab some.

On 8/15/2024 at 1:26 AM, MrSMW said:

I’d be happy with the halfway house of an option between the lens and body.

Fair. On narrative sets, swapping front filters isn't much more trouble than swapping rear filters imo. Most (all?) adapter-based options either have artifact-prone polarization-based ND adjustments, or require the physical filter to be swapped to change levels. So I don't think that gives me much benefit.

I've lived without internal NDs for so long that it's not a huge deal to me. But it would be convenient to have them. On the other hand, every other project, I have bad rolling shutter artifacts in 1-2 shots...so not particularly common, but common enough that the Z6III's sensor looks pretty good to me right now.

It really looks like Panasonic is getting some momentum with improved AF. Hopefully their extended time between releases just means they don't want to bang out incremental upgrades. From my admittedly distant view, the S1->S5->S5II releases each brought a substantial upgrade, more so than many other product lines. With the new XLR2 module and 32 bit float, they entered a whole new realm of camera feature, and it would be odd if they didn't bring that to their FF L-mount line.

I hope Panasonic adds 3 things to a new S1H or BS1H model.

1. Faster readout--this is the only image recording upgrade I care for, compared to the S5

2. Compatible with their 32 bit float XLR module. I assume any flagship cameras will support it going forward.

3. Internal NDs. I guess at this point I'm fine living without them, but we can always hope, right?

On 8/11/2024 at 9:59 PM, Ninpo33 said:

EVERYTHING is JUST a look. Why shoot with promist filters? Why choose Zeiss lenses with 3D pop? Why color grade? Just shoot in the basic "natural" profile and be done... All that work for just a look.

It is accurate that everything is just a look. Narrative film is about evoking an emotion by manipulating light and sound. I like to think of everything as a thread on a tapestry of interwoven emotional effects. Every choice we make -- spherical vs anamorphic lenses, levels and types of diffusion filters, lighting ratios, EQ profiles for dialog, etc -- is both a point on a gradient rather than a binary choice between extremes, and also works with all of the other choices to craft a specific look and sound. And every thread is interpreted by the audience based on their prior experiences.

So yes, anamorphic is a look that carries both its denotative properties such as oval bokeh, flares, and distortions, and also its connotative properties that, depending on the audience, might evoke the feeling of big Hollywood action movies. Or for a different audience and in a different context, it might parody big Hollywood action movies.

On 8/10/2024 at 1:36 AM, herein2020 said:

 

I hate actual lens flare, in my opinion when it comes to lens flare from photography lenses used for video or in photographs there is nothing more annoying than lens flare. I am guessing anamorphic lenses flare in a much more complimentary way than the lenses that I own because I do everything I can to avoid it during a shoot. 

My lenses when they flare completely ruin the contrast and clarity, and usually the flare is a very undesirable odd pattern that is burned into the footage. It is on my list of complaints regarding my Canon EF 24-105 F4.0 L lens, even with the lens hood on it, it flares uncontrollably if the sun is at just the right angle.

Haha I agree, I typically dislike lens flares in video. Sometimes I take photos with a cool flare because it was interesting at the time.

2 hours ago, Happy Daze said:

In my short experience of shooting anamorphic on the BMCC 6KFF at a 1.6x squeeze in open gate 3:2 I found that detail increases a great deal when the video is rendered in 4K. The resultant video is 2.4:1 at 3840 x 1600, and if you think about it, you take the horizontal resolution down to 3840 from 6048 a scaling factor of 1.575 whilst the vertical resolution reduces from 4032 to 1600 with a factor of 2.52. that's a better scaling factor than filming in 8K 2.4:1  7680 x 3200 and rendering at 4K which of course has a scaling factor of just 2 on the vertical axis. There is plenty of information to play with and you can achieve Incredible detail. My first test video:

I love the footage! And that's interesting about the cliffs falling into the sea. I've definitely thought about getting some of those Sirui anamorphics. I'd say that most shots in this test don't specifically highlight the anamorphic qualities, so for this particular content, I would be just as happy cropping a spherical lens. In that sense I agree that it's not specifically about resolution, and the choice of lenses is highly dependent on the type of shots in that particular project.

18 hours ago, Ninpo33 said:

Man, I can't tell if you are just trolling with your comments on this forum or if you are serious? 

I've been on this forum a long time, and I've never seen any indicator in this thread or anywhere else that @Benjamin Hiltonis trolling, or is anything other than a decent guy.

1 hour ago, Ninpo33 said:

Lastly, everyone these days online is being sold on the full frame sensor for video in the consumer space and I constantly hear people laughing at micro 4/3 and APS-C cameras and thinking they have no value. I feel like it would be enlightening to a lot of newbies to see that their ZV-E1 is actually only shooting 10.2 megapixels for video and already cropped in on the full frame sensor to even achieve the measly 3840x2160 UHD.

There are a couple ways to look at it imo. I'm a very procedural person, in that I conceptualize end result as a function of the inputs. If I know the inputs, I plan the output in my head, and that's how I approach a shoot. On the other hand, I know people who have no idea how big their sensor is, but also produce better films than I do. They look through the lens and know what they want. If the end result looks good, who cares if you're using 40% of the sensor?

Neither approach is wrong. But I do believe that products should have accurate and complete specs.

45 minutes ago, Benjamin Hilton said:

Can I ask why it matters to you? 

Because when I shop for cameras I want to know what FOV my lens will have. And in general it's good to list basic specs of things, similar to how microphones list their max SPL (would I still buy it if the max SPL were 1 dB lower? Probably).

I agree. Crop in each mode is an easy thing to precisely measure and communicate to potential buyers. Even when the crop is specified by a manufacturer, it's almost never more than 2 significant figures, nor do they specify whether they are listing horizontal, vertical, or diagonal crop. Sensor readout speed is another one that is easy to measure, and should be on the spec sheet for every mode.

5 hours ago, eatstoomuchjam said:

Anamorphic wasn't made for resolution, IIRC.  It was made to allow a wider image on standard 35mm film.

Anamorphic was used to project a wider aspect ratio onto existing film formats, thereby retaining full detail/resolution of the frame. Achieving the same ratio by cropping discarded surface area/resolution.

12 hours ago, IronFilm said:

If you're using V Locks, get yourself a D-Tap to USB-C cable? 

I use npf (pic on page 1) with usb power. Honestly if the battery door were more accessible I would just deal with swapping rechargeable AA's.

16 hours ago, Ty Harper said:

Yeah def gotta do what makes sense for your workflow. I get by np with this being the consistent core of my setups - so obviously very easy to swap batts out

That's not a bad setup. I'd like to swap my setup with a plug on transmitter with 32 bit internal recording. That would be even better as a quick-swap between camera and boom pole, and provide easy battery access. So hopefully my bulky setup is temporary anyway.

3 hours ago, Ty Harper said:

Curious what you consider short battery life. I use the F3 almost exclusively now rigged to my R5C. I use Eneloop rechargeables and don't recall ever worrying about the batt life. 

One definite downside is if you power the F3 with a V-mount, you'll introduce  some hum into your recording so avoid at all costs. 

Aside from that I love the Zoom F3!

 

I get a couple hours on the F3, max. Not enough to get through an 8-hour shoot without changing them. I mean it would be okay to use AA's exclusively, but considering the placement of the battery door, and my preference for completely solid rigging, it's sort of a pain to change them at all. I think I would be annoyed having to move things like @BTM_Pixshowed, and then tighten it back down and all (not to say it's worse, just that it's not for me).

This is my setup now. The F3 and battery plate are bolted onto a bracket with a NATO clamp on the other side. For all-in-one setups, I slide it onto the camera cage. For separate audio, I also have a NATO rail on the boom pole, so we can quickly move the whole unit from camera to boom. It would be nice to shave the NPF's weight but the ease of use wins out for me at the moment.

@BTM_Pix how do you deal with the f3's short battery life? I have my f3 attached to an npf battery sled, but it's bulky. I wouldn't mind changing AA's every few hours, but the battery door isn't accessible when mounted like that.

On 6/18/2024 at 10:27 AM, lsquare said:

In Adobe Lightroom, I just go to the develop module and utilize the RAW photo with the white balance card to correct the white balance in the photo that I want. Can I do the same thing in a NLE?

You can. But you need to do it in linear color space for accurate results. Shoot a clip in a log format, download Da Vinci Resolve, and try it out!

24 minutes ago, zlfan said:

about 2.5 MB/s, about 2000 Mbps!

2.5 MB/s is 20 Mbps

On 6/15/2024 at 1:43 AM, MrSMW said:

In my ideal world, that is how I would work as would pretty much any pro.

For my line of work, mainly weddings, and shooting hybrid 100% of jobs, I don’t because it’s not practical, so I have a ‘go to’ instead.

Oh yeah, please no one listen to me if you're doing event shooting. All of my experience is shooting narrative with a script, rehearsals, etc.

5 minutes ago, lsquare said:

Is video a completely different beast where I can't fix the white balance after the fact when shooting in ProRes RAW or ProRes HQ 422?

No, I wouldn't say that. If you use a color managed workflow, you can absolutely change the white balance in post when shooting ProRes Raw or HQ--within reason. If you seriously mess up your white balance (shot at 150 Kelvin and need it to be 6500) it might not go well. But shooting 3000 and changing to 6000 usually looks fine, as mentioned in another comment. Do some tests to see whether it works for you.

Note that it depends on a color managed workflow, because WB changes should be performed in linear gamma. Creative picture profiles typically don't have accurate transformations so they are less useful for changing WB in post. Common log formats typically have LUTs (or, even better, mathematical transformations) to change between gamuts and gammas. Small WB changes might look okay without being in linear space, but the larger the change, the more you'll wish it was done accurately.

First thing I'd say is, it's up to you and your own eyes to determine where your threshold is for what is acceptable. So my recommendation is always to do as many tests as you can to figure out what you personally find as a good workflow, and don't worry too much about what other people say is or is not good enough.

On most controlled shoots, I set a white balance for the scene and use that throughout. When possible, I'll shoot a color chart in the same lighting for reference later. I have found that on my current camera, I get MUCH better results when I set to a specific kelvin value, rather than a white card. I've used cameras in the past that were the opposite.

If you do find that you need to make adjustments in post, you will get the best results if you adjust white balance in linear gamma. The easiest way to do that is by transforming the color space using Resolve's color management. If you don't want to worry about that for now, that's okay! I always like to just try different things to see what happens, and eventually I find what I like.

8 hours ago, gt3rs said:

Have you tried one and watch one of your work on a high res big screen and you may change idea?

I was very skeptical but I’m now a believer.

Just watching my own movies on a big screen is impressive. The immersive stuff is scary good.

I'm a software engineer for a VR company. As someone who uses VR 2-5 days a week, I have no desire to wear a headset more than I absolutely have to. I've tried a variety of models, including the Vision Pro. It's fun to experience VR the first few times, but in terms of physical comfort, sitting on a couch with a 65" screen and a subwoofer is way better than watching films on a headset, even considering the 3d factor. If you add a few people in, I would MUCH rather sit on a couch than both wear headsets and pretend we're watching the same thing.

Not to diminish what you enjoy of course! We all have different preferences 🙂 However most people I talk to are roughly in my camp, especially those of us who are in VR on a regular basis. The novelty wore off. We'd rather text than talk in VR with avatars.

Gaming, on the other hand, is a lot of fun. I like VR games. I like how they introduce unique motor skills (you actually have to aim your hand and hold it steady to get a headshot!). I think to get widespread VR adoption, all the big companies need to do is make a game that is properly fun and polished. The hardware is fine as is it's the content that's lacking. I haven't tried anything that truly felt blockbuster quality.

5 hours ago, BenEricson said:

Still convinced this is marketing hype. I use the C500ii and C70 pretty regularly. The C70 in raw is real noisy. The C500ii is cleaner all around. By a lot.

It's possible. I mean I would typically expect a full frame sensor from the same generation to have lower noise than a S35 sensor. Are you talking about base ISO? I've definitely seen tests showing the C500 2 having way better noise performance at higher ISO's than the C300 III and C70.

CVP's comparison implies that the C400 has worse latitude than the C300 Mk III, which supports the idea that their DGO technology worked fairly well. I haven't tried any of these cameras so I have no firsthand information. It just sort of surprised me that they didn't keep using that feature.

Looks pretty awesome! No real complaints from me yet, based on the CVP video. Worth an $8k spend for me? Meh... not really. But it looks really solid with most of the expected basics covered, even if it doesn't have anything wildly new.

The one weird thing is that they have left out a DGO sensor. Seems like a strange choice, considering how the C70 has it.

29 minutes ago, kye said:

and isn't 15x the size of the camera.

Also true lol.

I'm personally fine with a large camera for what I do now. I could do with a different form factor though. But I do appreciate that lots of people like or need photo-cam style bodies, and hey if now we can have the same thing as before, but without clipped audio, I think that's pretty awesome!

I'm actually pretty surprised that Blackmagic didn't do it with their new cine cam, or even the Pyxis. Maybe Canon will have 32 bit float in their June 5 cinema announcement? I'm pretty excited to see what they announce anyway.

1 hour ago, Eric Calabros said:

If its on top of a very good preamp. Otherwise it would be like taking a photo in a dark environment at ISO 51200 with 16bit raw. 

Well yeah obviously if its terrible quality then it doesn't matter whether it's 16, 24 or 32 bit, it'll suck. Assuming the preamps are roughly in line with what you get on most prosumer equipment, and that it does some kind of dual gain merging like virtually every other prosumer 32 bit recorder, and that the module doesn't physically break when you breathe on it, then 32 bit float is a huge improvement for a huge number of people.

Awesome lens. Sigma is definitely one of my favorite companies in the camera and lens world. It's not a huge zoom range, but 28 and 50 are basically the only two primes I use regularly. 45 isn't quite 50, but if you're looking to cover a LOT of scenarios without compromising on speed or sharpness, it looks like a great choice.

Too bad they couldn't put a linear focus ring on it. It's so difficult to use something like this with a wireless follow focus. Maybe they'll eventually make a cine version, like their 24-35.

9 hours ago, Marcio Kabke Pinheiro said:

new 32bit float recording methods via a new XLR unit 

That is exciting! 32 bit in camera will be huge for solo shooters.

35 minutes ago, zlfan said:

I doubt about your work flow. did you try mlv app for cc? resolve cannot give you the same color as mlv app. 

i can generate extremely good iq footage due to its color depth and full frame. i really doubt that modern prosumer cams can do it. think about it, full frame 14 bit color depth true lossless raw vs crap codecs. if you say alexa lf or 65, maybe they win. for others, i really doubt about your conclusion. i think you need to test the latest ml firmware and mlv app workflow, optimize your workflow and skills, then decide. 

My magic lantern work was on amazon prime. It has also been shown in local theaters, and films that I shot on magic lantern won awards both in the US and abroad. None of it was high profile or anything like that, but I think my workflow was fine.

I'm not trying to change anyone's mind. You can like what you like. However, I would not consider my opinion to be uninformed.