eatstoomuchjam

Of course - the Komodo was designed to be a crash camera for big productions. Red really didn't plan for having a bunch of people using it for A cameras. It's always been an odd one out among their lineup. Anyway, I'd also say that it's pretty impressive that the OG Komodo, a 5+ year old camera with a (supersized) S35 global shutter sensor is coming up about even in those tests with a brand new FF camera with rolling shutter. Though I'd also guess that outside of that sort of over/under test, the ZR will have better apparent/usable dynamic range than the OG Komodo and maybe even vs the Komodo-X which is noticeably better than the OG. I think that there is almost no doubt that the S1 II will win it. 😄

You seem to post nothing but angry negative stuff. Why waste your time with all of us talentless hacks?

(Including SmallHD)

It's also worth pointing out that jpeg is, as far as I know, 8-bit only. It's one of the reasons that modern iPhones (and maybe Android?) default to HEIF instead.

Which, to some extent, just says Nikon is spending more on marketing which means they can hire better shooters/editors. 😃

"Need" is a strong word. It's likely that a lot of the benefits of 12-bit raw could be realized by just using a 12-bit variant of any other codec. I'm told that a lot of productions shot ProRes 4444XQ when they had Arriraw available. That said, PRR HQ is about the same quality as 4444XQ, but with much smaller file sizes. I think it's because PRR is non-debayered which means it's only saving 1 value per pixel instead of 3. A limiting factor, though, is that a lot of processors and GPU's only have onboard support for accelerated decode of 10-bit HEVC - so 12-bit will seem really slow/laggy on a lot of people's systems. Otherwise, people will talk about the ability to change white balance in raw, etc, but I've personally found those things to be a little bit overblown. If you're swinging from 2300k to 5600k, maybe, it's better to have all of the color channel info, but if you captured at 5600k and want to move to 5200k, it's probably fine. And, of course, people will bring up the ability to change ISO in the raw import, but this is asinine. It is convenient as a quick way to change exposure, but is functionally equivalent to just adjusting an exposure slider for non-raw footage (again, as long as the file is thick enough that the all of the details are there). For me, I like having thick files with a lot of dynamic range - so for now, I prefer cameras with raw. That's absolutely subject to change if people start shipping cameras with 12-16-bit HEVC. I think that the popularity of the FX3/FX6 and the sheer number of people making great-looking stuff with them serves as a great allegation against the necessity of raw. It also really depends on your goal/intention. I just got back from 2 weeks in Namibia. I chose to bring my GFX 100 II and didn't bring an external recorder for raw so what footage I shot of animals there will be all 10-bit ProRes 422 (5.8k or 8k). I also had an EOS R5 with me which was capable of 8k raw, but I ended up just giving it to my gf to use the whole time to shoot photos since the animals tended to be more than a few meters from the car and it let her see them (her with the EF 100-400 f/4.5-5.6 and me mostly with the GF 500/5.6). I don't think that, even once, I thought to myself that I should take back the R5 to capture some raw footage of a giraffe drinking from a watering hole. If anything, I thought "does this really need to be ProRes?"

I don't know about L mount. There are a few for E mount, though.

If "improved DR" means 1/3-1/2 of a stop, I'd be inclined to not worry about that, regardless. But if the S35 mode gets a full extra stop (plus the 1/3-1/2), that's likely to be noticeable. I'd stick with the standout feature of this camera for many modern shooters being the 3:2 open gate recording option. That isn't a thing I care about so I'll continue waiting for Canon to release the camera that makes me think it'd be worth selling my R5. Hint to Canon, it probably involves the letters d, g, and o. 😅

I really like my Simera C's in M mount. I like my Leica M's more, but the M's are a lot less consistent. You might consider going the M mount route, if for no other reason than you can get an autofocus adapter for it - and then they'll be portable to any system that you might move to in the future.

Oh, that's super cool!

With eND, you mean? Or do you just mean the first decent one? Fotodiox has had vND adapters for years now, but they're pretty mediocre in quality. 😃

It could also have to do with readout speed. 14-bit is slower to read out and tends to give worse rolling shutter numbers. If Canon decided they wanted to hold RS at 15ms, they could probably read out the full sensor at 12-bit, but still have <15ms when reading out the smaller 5K crop at 14-bit. It seems like a weird thing to do, but more choices are always welcome.

BM P4K can make a really nice image, but the ergonomics are a bit funky, with the chonky body and the non-flippable screen. It also doesn't really even pretend to have AF beyond a push button that focuses once only and not continuously. The GH7 is an incredible camera and is still incredible. If you don't need the improved AF, the GH6 is also fantastic. And there's nothing wrong with the GH5 or GH5s.

Huh? It's not moving the goal posts to assert that the fact that some 35mm lenses expose character, but not all - and it's also not moving the goal posts to point out that the same statements are true if you use an S35 lens on FF or a S16 lens on M43. I don't need to maintain a belief that I'm right when I am, in fact, right. In fact, I was the one who brought up Fraser's quote and said that it was based and that indeed, for the lenses that he was using, he was getting more character on a larger sensor. Which of us does that apply to, again? Physician, heal thyself. Terms with no actual definition are useless for discussion or debate. The true idiots are the ones who say that the music ain't old-timey enough. 😉 That is technically true, yes, but as ND64 pointed out, radically impractical if you're shooting wide open. But you can very easily achieve the same look with S35 and many people do it by using a simple focal reducer. And if you don't insist on shooting at T1.2 for maximum toneh all day long, you can also get a similar look on M43, even more so if using a focal reducer. If you're shooting a 50mm at f/4 on your FF camera and shooting a 25mm at f/2 on your MFT camera, they'll look pretty similar - with the main differences relating to the character of the specific lens in use. But the FOV and DOF will be similar enough for it not to matter much - and the gradients/falloff/etc will probably look better on whichever camera is capturing at higher resolution, not the one with the bigger sensor, also assuming that the scene is well-lit since the smaller sensor will probably start to get noisy sooner.

Good, I'm glad we agree. Sorry if I misunderstood you to be arguing with me instead of agreeing with me. Good. I was mostly responding to the comment about "true" open gate. I just prefer to use the ratios for clarity. Yes. For shooting landscape/wildlife, I tend to prefer sharp modern glass, but for portraits/video, I like vintage stuff and for my vintage lenses that work on GF, sometimes the ragged outer edges of the image circle are really nice. I already said that Fraser's comment was based. Agreed that people can choose whatever hammer they want - and I've also said that I'd consider renting the Eterna for a project if it made sense. I'm not, in any way, saying that people shouldn't buy or use it. I'm more suggesting that it's overpriced and that I think most people who are looking in that price range are going to choose an FX9, V-Raptor XE, or UC 12K LF - and that with a somewhat bigger budget, the UC 17K 65 also becomes an option. Fuji would have a lot more sales (and still plenty of profit margin) if they dropped the Eterna at $9-11k. Still plenty of competition in that price range, but then they're undercutting the 41mm wide sensor of the raptor. Since the XE was announced almost in tandem, I am guessing that Fuji's pricing was determined before that announcement. Suspect it will drop a lot after a little while, but at $16k, Fuji also have to be careful not to anger early adopters by dropping the price too soon. Maybe 1 year.

I've posted a bunch of times saying that the GH7 is a great camera. There's not much to discuss with a camera that's been on the market for a wihle, though. Kye posts frame grabs from he shot alone with his GH7 that I think look a lot nicer than what Chris and Jordan did with an entire crew and an Eterna. I already said, though, that I have other reasons for liking my GFX 100 II. I'm not cherry picking anything. I'm just saying the truth, based on 20+ years of shooting with cameras ranging from a 16mm bolex / Pentax Auto 110 to a Gundlach 8x20 inch camera and having done tons of side-by-side comparisons. What you see as ego is just experience and impatience. Anyway, have a good one and enjoy your Eterna if you buy one. Depending on the lens, sure. 😀 The GF 55/1.7 is enormous for a 55mm lens, but the 63/2.8 and 50/3.5 are both pretty small/light. But yes, the two fastest first-party lenses for GF are f/1.7 primes (55 and 80) and the 110/2 is the next fastest. Otherwise, there's not a single first-party lens for the system faster than f/2.8 and only two there (the 45 and 63). Though to be fair, in classic medium format terms, some of the fastest lenses ever made were f/1.8 and only covered 6x4.5 (Pentax or Mamiya system IIRC) and the I think the fastest that covered a 6x6 or larger was a Pentax 105mm f/2.4 (which is a monster of a lens) - unless Hasselblad made something faster. But most 6x6 and larger lenses were f/4 or slower.

Sure, but you can accomplish a similar thing by using S35 lenses on FF. Or S16 lenses on M43. You pointed to a bunch of other incorrect things too like DOF equivalence as well. And again, 16/17:9 is "true" open gate on many cinema cameras. But it's also not true that every lens made for FF has extra character when you use it on 44x33mm. The Canon EF 85mm f/1.4L covers the entire GFX sensor and has minimal character all the way to the edges. The tiny Canon 40/2.8 pancake similarly has minimal character while covering 44x33 pretty well. Fraser wanted to use specific vintage lenses that had more character near the edges of the image circle. Certain FF lenses, yes. And the eterna 55 doesn't use the high MP of the 44x33 sensor for anything. Just like the GFX 100 II, your options to use the full sensor width are 4K with decent RS and mediocre DR (up to 60fps), 4K with strong RS and good DR (up to 30fps? Not sure of the max, but less than 60), 4K open gate with decent RS and mediocre DR (this differs from GFX 100 II), and 5.8k 2.35:1 with strong RS and mediocre DR. 8K goes to a crop really similar to full frame on a 24x36mm sensor and also has strong RS and mediocre DR. I haven't, at any point, said that the Eterna isn't a completely invalid camera with no uses. What I am saying is: 1) There is no intrinsic "medium format look" 2) For a vast majority of use cases, the less expensive V-Raptor XE with a 41mm wide sensor, good DR, and a global shutter will likely be chosen over this one by higher-end owner-operators (those who don't just buy an FX9 (cheaper yet) or C400 (even cheaper) - which, realistically, is most of them). If you prefer the Eterna, you're not wrong. You're welcome to use any tool that you like. I might rent it myself if a project came along where it made sense. I just think that the number of sales that aren't to rental shops will be really low.

Sorry, but this sentence makes no sense. A bigger sensor doesn't change how a lens behaves. The lens always behaves the same and projects the exact same image circle. And "cinematic" is a meaningless term so "cinematic signature" is equally meaningless. This is untrue. Assuming that you mean compared with S35, to be more specific, FF gives shallower depth of field for equivalent framing at the same focal range and aperture. You can get an identical image by using a wider S35 lens with a bigger aperture. This is exactly what focal reducers do when they focus the image circle of a FF lens down onto an S35 sensor. In fact, when using a focal reducer, a Komdoo or Komodo-X has slightly less DOF at equivalent framing than a natively FF camera (the equivalent crop factor at that point is something like 1.05x). This also becomes largely an academic distinction if you don't insist on shooting fast lenses wide open 24x7. And even if you do, do you need shallower DOF than Army of the Dead, that Zack Snyder movie from 2021 that was shot entirely with the Canon 50/0.95 dream lens wide open? This is true, but irrelevant to a discussion of whether there is or isn't a medium format look. It only reveals more lens character in the sense that for some lenses, you see the worse parts of the image circle outside of the standard 35mm film size. In some cases, it also just means you can't use the lens at all - for example, my Noctilux-M 50/1 only barely covers 24x36mm and already has dark corners and edges. On a GF sensor, you just get the edge of the image circle surrounded by blackness. That lens has plenty of character already on FF. On film, yes, but this is related to the inherent resolution limits of film. On the 100 megapixel GF sensor, this is technically true vs 35mm format cameras that have 61 megapixels, but it's largely an academic distinction that is barely noticeable in practical terms. But when you're using line skipped/binned 4K off of that sensor, you have less smooth falloff than off of a 35mm sensor recording 8K. This is also academic and can barely be seen. At the same focal length, sure. Luckily, we can change lenses. It would be true to say that you can capture a different image with the same lens as a smaller format. So if your goal is to get a different look out of your vintage Nikkor 200mm lens and if that lens has an image circle big enough to nominally cover a sensor that's 44mm wide. If you're shooting 16/17:9, will that difference be substantially different than the image from a V-Raptor XE with a 41mm wide VV sensor (that costs $1,500 less)? No. That or if 3:2 capture isn't a concern, go rent the Ursa Cine 17K 65 with a 51x24mm sensor. Yeah, footage from the GFX 100 II looks nice too. But so does footage from the GH7, a camera with a much smaller sensor. For video, I prefer footage from my UC12K LF to what I get from the GFX 100 II.

Are you seriously asking me to explain the thought process of other humans? I'm pretty sure I'm not qualified for that. None of those films were filmed entirely on medium format. Are you suggesting that when you watch them, you're suddenly jolted out of your seat when The Joker switches from Alexa 65 to Alexa LF? Or that you can even tell? Note that at no part of that does Greg Fraser say "I wanted the medium format look." Instead, he's talking about how much he liked the look he got from using lenses designed for smaller formats. It is objectively true that the designers of those lenses never anticipated that the outer edges of the image circle would get used at some point. This seems like a pretty based and objective take and a reason that somebody might choose to use a larger sensor. I like cropping, it has fantastic dynamic range, and some of the first-party lenses for the system (particularly the 110/2, 250/4, and 500/5.6) are among the best lenses I've ever seen. I'll turn this around and ask you these questions: 1) What do you think medium format look is? 2) Is there a FF look vs an S35 look and does a speed booster give S35 the FF look? 3) Is a sensor size that's just as close to 35mm film as it is to traditional medium format film going to give a medium format look or a full frame look? Because for photos, at least, 44x33 gives a total area of 1452 where 24x36 gives a total area of 864. Meanwhile, 6x4.5 (56x42mm realistically) which is the smallest medium format film size has an area of 2,352 and 6x7 (56x72) film dwarfs it at 4,032. 4) To turn around the question above, if there is a specific medium format look, why do tentpole movies like Mission Impossible which have effectively unlimited budgets use smaller formats, even for some of their big, sprawling epic shots? (And yes, MI Rogue Nation used Alexa 65 for the underwater scene, but the rest was shot on smaller sensors IIRC)

I'd like to see some deeper analysis on it. Could be that R3D NE is just high-bitrate Nikon raw and it could be that Resolve limits log3g10 decoding to files matching the r3d extension without checking the underlying raw format. Either way, that's pretty cool.

Has somebody confirmed that renaming the file works?

https://imaging.nikon.com/imaging/lineup/z_cinema/z_r/ So in 6k at 23.97p, it's 190 megabytes/second which comes to 11.4GB/minute which is about 680GB/hour. If you're used to H.265 (about 340 Mbps), that's huge. If you're comparing it to ProRes 422 HQ, it's... very slightly less (PR HQ is 1540 Mbps for 6K at 2397p on the same camera).

I stand corrected on that - though on most of the sets that I'm on, the sound engineer wants to plug their Tentacle Sync into a port on the camera. I know that Tentacles communicate amongst themselves with Bluetooth, but I'm not aware of them being able to jam to any cameras that way. I'd be delighted to be wrong about that too.

Now we are aligned. The term has become meaningless (or always was meaningless). 😀 About the only real definition could be "a camera used to film something that screens in a cinema" and nowadays, that includes iPhones and GoPros. Heck, a bunch of the best scenes (motorcycle jump, jumping from plane to plane) in the two latest Mission Impossible films were shot on the humble Z Cam E2-F6 and I'm pretty sure it was recording ProRes 422 (HQ?). On the big screen, it played just fine with their Burano/Venice (or whatever it was) that was used as the A Cam. If that $3k camera, released in 2018 can play in a megabudget feature film, just about any camera on the market today can do the same - including your phone. And now that same phone has a dock which will give it things like timecode and the latest version of it can record ProRes RAW internally. Many of us read the news on our cinema camera daily while sitting on the toilet. 😉

If you're upset about hybrid-styled cameras with somewhat awkward ergonomics being called "cinema camera," you must have been frustrated since 2018 or so. https://www.blackmagicdesign.com/products/blackmagicpocketcinemacamera I'd be inclined to say that "cinema camera" is just about as meaningless as calling an image "cinematic." It means plenty of different things to different people. "How can you call it a cinema camera when it doesn't even have SDI output?" "That ain't no cinema camera, it has no mounting points on top or the sides!" "Cinema cameras don't have autofocus" "Cinema cameras need to be dedicated to ultimate image quality and it's not a true cinema camera without 16-bit raw." The ZR is obviously not going to be the A camera on a lot of professional shoots. It has no TC, no SDI, bad HDMI, and bad memory card location. On the other hand, it might finally be fulfilling some of the promise of the Komodo - a small, light crash camera that you easily fit in small spaces - or that you can easily throw at an AC/second shooter to go get some b-roll or a second angle handheld or with a light tripod and have it be a good match SOOC for what you're shooting with your Komodo-X or V-Raptor. Lack of a physical shutter lock is a bummer for some crash cam use cases. Sorry it's not for you, regardless! I'd be willing to bet that the next iterations of the Z6/8/9/etc start working in Redcode NE too.