aaa123jc

If it has a full HDMI port and 10Bit 422, there will be great and possibly tempt me to buy it.

Sony has done a lot of great improvements on their cameras lately. The only reason I didn't go for the A7S3 is the lack of proper APS-C option. Most of my lens collection is not full frame. 

After doing videos for three years, I've learned an expensive camera does not always equal to an expensive and beautiful image. Part of that "Arri" look or cinematic look as people call it, is created before the camera starts to capture. 

The videos now I can shoot with very cheap camera are so much better than what I used to shoot using a Sony A7S2. Give the best camera in the world to a newbie and he is going to still have bad result. Something I only learned after quite a few bad investments. 😅

What I want to say is, a thick image with great contrast and saturation has to be created on the set, and then enhanced with camera and post production. If you can fully control the set, you don't even need log profile or crazy high bitrate or raw most of the time, though they are certainly nice to have. 

The image quality is very good on this camera. Got me excited to try it out myself.😄

This is a surprisingly meaningful video. Makes me think about life. 

My girlfriend and I used to shoot videos just for fun. Very silly stuffs, really. We knew nothing about videography so the videos are just bad. This changed after we do video professionally. We don't shoot those silly videos anymore. We only shoot paid jobs and testings. It's like we have forgotten making videos are not always about work. Making videos are not fun anymore most of the time.

Maybe that can help with my depression. Who knows?

2 hours ago, kye said:

Most of the time I just go into Resolve and look to see what stuff is called or whatever, but I don't have the free version so can't reference it 🙂 

The free version can do the majority of what the studio version does, except for noise reduction and certain OFX. It also supports multiple nodes and most of the color grading functions. 

For most users, the free version offers enough features to use it even professionally. This is the beauty of Davinci Resolve. 

To be honest, for my current computer (basic model iMac 2019) and my other computer (5+ years old PC), every types of 4K footage are a bit too much to handle, for some reason. Some run more smoothly, while some simply don't run at all. But so do some high bitrate 1080P footage. Once you add a lot of effects, they all act the same and I need to make proxy. 

In my opinion, the main reason why many shoot 4K is that the 1080P in their cameras are simply not that good. Many commonly used cameras have great 4K but 1080P ranging from not good to really bad. On the other hand, I am happily shooting 1080P with my FS5 and only occasionally shoot 4K for big cropping. 

However, I don't think the 4K workflow is really that bad. It's just some don't need it, while some other can't live without it. 

On 8/22/2020 at 4:40 AM, mrtreve said:

Ah yes, that makes sense. It's one of those things where being more mobile might make for a better looking end result over the bump in absolute image quality.

I've absolutely over-rigged cameras in the past and in a doc situation the first thing you end up doing is take all the extra stuff off again ha.

Yeah, I usually prefer a smaller rig because I like to handheld a lot. A heavy camera is great for handheld, but too heavy, not so much. 😆

21 hours ago, kye said:

I've been doing various tests of image quality (Prores vs h264/h265) and also YouTube quality, and i'm thinking my next test will be if YT at 4K is good enough quality to tell the difference between a 4K acquisition / 4K upload and a 2K acquisition / 4K upscaled upload.

The reason I mention this is that you're wondering if 4K 420 8-bit would be "good enough" for YT, whereas I think there's a chance that even 2K 422 might be "better" than 4K YT.

My experience is that the difference between a great 4K master and a barely passable 4K master is basically invisible once YT compression has done its thing and brutally crunched the image.

Thanks. 

I think I will just export H264 to YouTube because the compression is quite bad. I never thought of uploading 4K upscaled though. I believe the YouTube compression for 1080P and 2K or 4K is different. This is something I can't understand. Like why not just have one standard.

My question though, is more like should I shoot 4K 422 10bit (ProRes 422) or 12bit ProRes Raw. English is not my native language so I may not be elaborated as I hoped. 

12 minutes ago, mrtreve said:

I would 100% just go with prores 422 for a doc destined for Youtube.

Most of the time when you record raw you get increased noise (as it bypasses some of the camera's processing like NR). In a doc situation with less than ideal lighting you could really be making more work for yourself in terms of having to de-noise everything.

Also slightly on a tangent - will a Ninja V work with your camera? Or do you need the Inferno to take the raw output? I think the Inferno is a bit large & heavy for a doc where it helps to be discreet. Also they chew through batteries which could be stressful in situations where you have to keep rolling.

I would definitely still try out Prores raw, but on something more controlled!

 

I think I need the shogun inferno to get the full function. The FS5 only output raw through SDI and the SDI module of Ninja V doesn't support raw. From my understanding, I have to choose the raw output option on the FS5 and the inferno will decode the raw signal and give me ProRes. I could be wrong though. And yeah, the inferno is very big and bulky, so it's probably less fun. 

Thank you for the advice. 

11 minutes ago, herein2020 said:

I have the C200 and it will do Canon RAW but I have shot everything from music videos to commercial work and never used the RAW capabilities. I do shoot literally everything in 4K because it gives you crop and recomposition options in post but I wouldn't recommend shooting RAW if you have never used that codec and it does sound like overkill for YouTube.  Two things I would not recommend doing for the first time on a paid shoot is using a gamma curve and a codec you have never used before.  I don't know what other codecs the FS5 offers but I can tell you that the 4:2:0 8 bit out of my C200 has been more than enough for everything I throw at it. For my workflow though I am very careful to get the WB correct in camera and control the highlights because it will fall apart in post if I got either of those wrong.

If you have never shot 4K I would definitely test that as well ahead of time mainly due to the data rates. Many SD cards can handle 1080P with no problem, but some cards can't handle the 4K data rates. Also, just  a personal thing, but I have never used an external recorder, to me its just more gear that can break, batteries can die, and that can be misconfigured.

Thank you.

After reading your comment, I feel like maybe I was thinking too much.

I still don't know why I worry about this shoot so much. It's not like it is my first paid job ever. I have been doing event videography for three years now. Maybe I just don't feel like I am a filmmaker because I have never done any narrative film or documentary. I just know how to expose and get shots that are useable, and make the "story" in editing. And having to be a proper filmmaker and plan for a short documentary for the first time makes me kind of nervous. 

I don't know. Maybe I should just shoot 4K internally. 8bit 420 has never been a problem for me anyway. I mainly shoot in S-Log2 so there is banding and compression artifacts here and there, but I guess YouTube compression is going to butcher the video regardless 😆. Or just ditch the thought of trying ProRes Raw and shoot ProRes 422 like I always do when I have to record externally. 

3 minutes ago, Geoff CB said:

Is your client asking for 4K high bit depth delivery?

If not I would NOT ad the variables of the external recorder and RAW that you've never shot with on top of you shooting for the day.  If you do go that route give yourself 2 days to get used to the setup and editing it before shooting. 

Thanks for the advice.

No, no need for 4K delivery and the client will just put the video on YouTube. I just think shooting 4K can give me more flexibility in post, such as cropping and reframing. 

I have many experiences using external recorders but never shoot ProRes Raw before, so I am a little bit hesitant to change my workflow.

But yeah, I will definitely give myself a day or two to get used to the setup and especially the editing process. 

I will be filming a very short (only a few minutes) documentary next week. And this is actually my first time shooting a documentary. 

Since I now own a Sony FS5, I am thinking should I shoot raw for this project? I had never considered using raw before for my event works, but it seems like this project requires something more serious than especially the internal codec. Yet, I also believe you can't change settings like white balance and iso when using ProRes Raw, so I don't really see the point of shooting raw except for the 12bit color. 

Normally, I edit and color grade with DaVinci Resolve and I think the software doesn't support ProRes Raw. I can use Premiere or Final Cut Pro though. 

I would like to shoot 4K (UHD) 50P so I will be renting an Atomos Shogun Inferno anyway. I want to crop in (perhaps quite heavily) during the interview and shoot some slow motion for b rolls.

Is ProRes 422 enough for these applications, or is ProRaw going to give me an edge in terms of image quality and grading headroom? 

Thank you. 

H.264 1080P via Google Drive. 

Most clients don't care about 4K or the codec, and they actually prefer smaller file size. Of course, there are some clients who have specific need, and I will deliver the codec and resolution they want. But more often than not, H264 1080P is the most suitable format for the clients. 

I do event videography mostly, so this is my experience. 

6 hours ago, noone said:

I think the A6600 would match it with the A7s ii until ISO 1600 but at ISO 25600 (24000 for the OP?), well the FF camera has almost 2 stops more DR then.

Mind you, an A6600 and a 2.8 lens would be about the same as the FF camera with a 5.6 lens but if you stick the 5.6 lens on APSC I do not think there are any that would be great right now.

Good  APSC camera with a lens like the Sigma 50-100 1.8 (75-150 FF angle of view)? 

Sigma 120-300 2.8?    Expensive but you can not have it all.

Maybe M43 and stick to no more than 12800 with a four thirds (not m43) Olympus 35-100 f2 zoom (70-200) though it is much better for AF on the EM1 and latest Em5 bodies only (not sure about video).    Very expensive again though.

I personally had not used the A6600 but heard some friends saying it is pretty good.

My personal experience with an A6500 is that the high iso performance (in terms of how clean the footage is) is not too far behind from the A7S2, which I owned at that time. I think may be the noise reduction algorithm has improved. But then again, I never shot at over 12800 ISO. Anything higher, especially at low night situation, is not acceptable for me even on the A7S2. 

But I agree a full frame camera always wins over an apsc camera from the same era in low light, just like an apsc will win over a M43 camera. 

1 hour ago, Dan Wake said:

Hi thx for help. I need f5.6 because I needs to use zoom lenses as for example 28 - 300mm. 
For the majority of the shots I just needs to get closer to the subject from the distance with a tele (that’s why apsc). And the quality must be very good during bad lit places during night.

I need it for documentaries
 

May I ask what kind of documentary are you filming? Are you filming wildlife?

Usually, superzoom lenses like 28-300mm already has stabilization on the lens. But they are in general not fast enough for shooting at night. You will need a bigger zoom lens or a tele prime. They are not cheap though, but depends on your work may be worthwhile to invest in. 

As for high iso performance, I believe a Sony A6600 is not that far behind A7S2, if not just as good or better. Still, no matter how good at high iso the camera is, there is a limit. High iso performance simply can't replace better lighting or faster lens. 

At first I was like A7S2 would be great, but then I saw it had to be good for color, so...😅

Canon C100 actually fits a lot of the requirements. It has flat profile, good color, very good high iso performance and has a lot of cheap but capable zoom. The problems are, it doesn't have internal stabilization and the form factor may not be suitable for you. 

It depends on which features are the more important. Sometimes we can't just have it all. 

My favourite is the Aputure 120D II and a few modifiers.

Although I mainly do event works so don’t always have the luxury of setting up lights, I use this light whenever I can. It is light and portable, but gives more than enough light unless you need to film in a very big room or have to simulate or fight against the sun.

But nowadays there are many competitively priced lights as well. So my favourite may change. 

2 hours ago, kye said:

Haters gonna hate....

That's top 5% of the most sensible things ever said on a camera forum.  

Nice to see a departure from the "based on one video I'm going to buy it / I'll never buy it" all-or-nothing sentiments 🙂 

Nah it’s because I’m broke now or I’m going to buy it. 😆

Well just kidding. I used to be one of those “I’m to buy it based on one video”, but now I care about workflow more than anything so I try before I buy anything if possible.

It amazed me how much money I have saved. 🤣

If you are asking which one to upgrade, camera or lens, I will go for lens. 

Sometimes, even cameras from years ago are more than capable unless you're looking for some specific functions. The NX1 you own is very capable. And because camera bodies are updated constantly, their value drop very quickly. Find one camera that you like and suits your needs, it can work for you for years. 

Lenses, on the other hand, keep their value. Financially speaking, they are not that bad for investments. I bought a few EF lenses back in 2017 and they are still being used. Even vintage ones, which I own quite a few, are great tools to have. It is important to stick to one or two mounts though. 

However, if you are just looking for upgrade, I have to go for lighting system (and griping equipment). 

With a good lighting setup, you can use very cheap lens and camera and still get very good result. In contrast, a good camera is not going to deliver excellent result with bad lighting. A lot of cinematic magic is created with lighting. A high quality light is another tool that you will not regret buying, only not buying more. 

And buy good griping equipment as well. They are not cheap though, but totally worth the investment. A good C-stand and a few nice clamps and clips are essential, especially if you do narrative work. 

The spec looks very good, almost too good to be true. However with this money, which I certainly don't have at the moment, I can also buy a Z-Cam E2-F6 or a Kinefinity MOVO, both of which I am very interested at. 

May check the Komodo out later. Maybe rent it once to try it out. 

I downloaded the footage by Jacques Crafford. First, thank you Jacques Crafford for sharing these footage so I can test them out. 

So I put it in Resolve, tweaked a little bit and used a color space transform. It took me about a minute or two. Here is the quick result.

Of course this is far from a graded image, only a starting point. 

I have to say this is quite an improvement over the A7S and A7S2. People argue otherwise likely never use an A7S before because its color science is really really bad. I will not say this new color from A7S3 can rival Arri Alexa, but this is definitely a usable image, especially if you consider the codec is pretty solid so you can do quite a lot of adjustments without breaking it. 

Surely, color is subject so everyone can have their own opinion, but I feel like claiming these images are horrible may be a little bit exaggerated. 

Personally for me, although the color from this A7S3 may not be the best, it is totally usable and if one cannot make a good picture of it, he is the one to be blamed. If you think my quick result is very bad, probably it is my fault too. 

This is interesting. 

I'm always amazed by what the EOS M and magic lantern can do. I love mine very much and it still is one of my favorite mirrorless camera. Although I will not take it to paid jobs, it is very fun to use and despite the price, has so much to offer. Shooting RAW continuously in such a small body is simply crazy. Though I had never thought of trying it, for some reason, and I only used magic lantern for focus peaking and audio level monitoring. 

Anyway, I suggest to invest a prime lens because the kit lens really isn't that great. Many of the shoots in the video would benefit from a shallower DOF and lower iso setting. 

On 8/2/2020 at 1:46 PM, majoraxis said:

Once there is an USRA Min Broadcast with a 6k RGB sensor using the same sensor tech as the BM12k, the both super 16 and b4 cinema lenses will be back in fashion.  

The super 16 lens is not the problem,  it is having camera that can make these lenses shine.

I had a GH1 with a vintage C-mount 25mm f0.95 and in video mode it look pretty good but in photo mode it look like a still frame from a movie.

Anyways, tube mics where kind pushed to the side by solid state mics in the 70’s as there were cleaner to analog tape then with digital audio recording the tube mics (and tube compressor) became in fashion again an doubled and quadrupled in price overtime.

Once Blackmagic’s RGB sensor tech as a lower price point and compatible with super 16 resolution wise, I’m sure it will be popular option for specific film genres like horror, documentaries and action scenes.

Love that microphone analogy. 

There is a reason why most of the popular high end microphones are all tube mics. The imperfections just make the sound more pleasant and interesting. However, I like solid state preamp more. But that's probably because I can't afford a good tube preamp. 😆

1 minute ago, kye said:

One of the things I've realised is that 1080p is enough and it's the bit-rate and bit-depth that really matters, rather than the resolution.

I am probably standardising on a 4K or 3.3K mode on my GH5, but not because I need the resolution, but because the bitrate is higher.  Most consumer cameras have very poor bitrates for lower resolutions.  We've spoken elsewhere in this thread about it, but long story short, when people talk about "only shooting 1080p" they're often talking about shooting with higher bitrates than most modern cameras do in any mode at all.

Take the A7s2 for example - a very popular "professional" camera for events and the like.  How does the image stack up?  It shoots 4K!! but here's the thing - it only shoots at 100Mbps, whereas Prores HQ is almost double that for 1080p.  Additionally, people often buy the A7s2 for low-light and difficult situations, but those people "only" shooting at the 176Mbps Prores typically light their scenes well as they're on a controlled set.  What happens if there is a difficult shot?  Well, a camera that shoots Prores is often capable of shootings RAW, so they swap over to RAW for the difficult shots.  So now it's the 100Mbps A7s2 vs ~800Mbps for RAW 1080p.

The resolution doesn't matter so much considering that the final image is resized to the same screen area, so in essence, a camera shooting 1080p is likely to dedicate between 2x and 8x the data to describing every eyelash, every dimple, every lip curl, every subtle skin texture, etc.

I haven't yet done the comparison of h264 vs Prores in terms of image quality, but it's on my list to do soon.

But the more I think about resolution, the more I think that people like the resolutions of the newer 4K cameras simply because they give you more bitrate, rather than more pixels.

Yeah, bitrate and bit depth are no doubt more important than resolution in most cases. I think the reason I like the GH5 much more than the A7S2 is the bitrate. However, I think there is more to this issue than simply bitrate and bit depth because I do find the cinema cameras, even if the bitrate is lower than the A7S2, they still look better and take grading better. Could be because the cinema cameras are usually shooting 422 other than 420. Or maybe there is some secret algorithm? I don't know. I could be very wrong though. 😆

I think Prores is a very good codec and in a perfect world every cameras should have it as an option, at least up to Prores 422. Much better performance and better image quality than H264. It is weird that most cameras which can do Prores internally can also do RAW and in the case of BRAW the file size is very comparable.

The only issue I can think of for Prores is storage, but this is not a problem for everyone. It is for me only because I often have to film very long takes. 

It will be interesting if there is a plugin designed specifically for handling spoken word (like an interview), but I take it this plugin is not? 

Anyway the price is pretty cheap for a good compressor. I used to learn mixing so I got plenty of plugins lying around, but this one looks quite interesting and convenient. May give it a try later. 😀

I am pretty much jobless due to covid so I have stopped following the camera industry since Jan this year, but recently I got a chance to test out the Canon R5 at their center. I was like "8K WTF" and "8K RAW WTF" at first. No word can describe my amazement. 

But after playing it in the 8K mode for a few minutes, for some reasons, the overheat warning popped up. This is totally understandable though. After all we are talking about 8K here. I will say the price of the camera is very competitive, very not Canon. And finally a Canon camera with IBIS! If I'm not next to broke right now, I will probably buy it.

Then the store clerk came and I asked her what was the bitrate of 8K. It was like 1300Mbps. 

I wonder how much I will be benefitted by this 8K technology, when most my clients only ever want 1080P. And how am I going to deal with the file size? 

Last year, I did most of my event video work with a Sony FS700 because it was cheap to rent and looked huge and impressive. Not a single client complained about the lack of resolution or sharpness. I found even the AVCHD codec was more than enough to work with. I even think the codec on the original C300 (50Mbps XF) and C100 (24Mbps AVCHD) are still perfectly fine for event videos, given you kind of nail the exposure when shooting and don't have to push very hard in grading.

For me, I shoot 4K with cameras like A7S2 not because I need 4K, but because the 1080P is just not as good. If the 1080P is good enough, I am more than happy to shoot it in Full HD. But I do see there are many situations where 4K or more is required. So I guess having more options is always better.