Dirk Gently

46 minutes ago, Django said:

I can't speak for ProResRaw but I can indeed speak of Canon Raw Lite.

I believe support/features were limited at first but as of Davinci 16.. Canon raw lite files are not only drag'n'drop but you get the RAW tab options as well (allowing full pre-bayer settings from WB, exposure to Log/Gamma etc directly from the NLE). It simply could not be any more "friendly" imho. Drag'n'Drop a CRM file, adjust Raw settings in real-time, edit & grade away. 

I'm on a 2016 MBP and I get zero hiccups while scrubbing/grading. Exporting in 4K is slow but probably not that much slower than any other RAW format. YMMV.

PS: I highly doubt ProRes Raw will get such support anytime soon in Davinci with the compressed raw wars going on behind the scenes.

Thanks indeed for your insights on this.  I'm happy to stand corrected on Canon's Cine Raw Lite, not least since it expands the number of  codecs in which I can be confident of shooting without causing any ripples in editing and grading.

6 minutes ago, Michi said:

From my understanding the crop on this cameras is determined by the sensors total resolution.. That's why there's a 1.8 crop on the 31mp EOS R and a 1.3 crop on the 20mp 1DX II. Isn't it? So if the rumors are true that the 1DX III will have a 28mp sensor and Videos are still recorded from a 4K "cut out" of that sensor, the crop will be bigger than on the 1DX II... But only if there still is no full sensor read out of course...  

This is apparently what Canon have done...  After all the complaints concerning the 1.74x crop in 4k when the EOS R was released, Canon admitted that that was the best they could do at the time - I have copied below a section from a Canon UK Q&A that sought to explain away the huge crop.  (They were limited to one-to-one pixel mapping, with a 4k 'cut out' from the middle of the sensor, as you rightly put it.)   But it appears that Canon have now advanced their tech to do away with a crop and in the larger 1DX form factor, which allows for much greater heat dissipation, at least if the reported Canon France version of the 1DXIII is reliable ( https://www.mac4ever.com/actu/147834_avec-l-eos-1d-x-mark-iii-canon-passe-a-l-heif-et-a-la-4kp60-10-bit-raw-interne-sans-crop ).  There is inevitably room for misunderstanding when details are being relayed via calls to groups of journalists in different countries, but I think it's fair to say that the 4k30 at least will have no or only a very modest crop (e.g. a crop that gives 1.5 times over-sampling from a 28MP sensor).  

"There's a lot of discussion online about the 'crop factor' when you shoot 4K video on EOS R. The lens's field of view is cropped by a factor of 1.74. So where the maximum 16:9 still image you can capture on the sensor is 6,720 x 3,776 pixels, the 4K video is a slice in the centre of that, 3,840 x 2,160 pixels. Let's be clear: this is 4K resolution, but the complaint is that this is not using the full field of view of the lens.

"This is down to the technical limitations of the sensor and the image processor. We could have tried to pursue full-frame 4K video capture, but it would take a lot of processing, for example, to scale and resample the capture, and this would risk causing the camera to overheat and shut down prematurely during video recording. We didn't want to risk that sort of instability. With the hardware we had available or in the pipeline, this is the best balance we can achieve at this time to deliver 4K capture."

source: https://www.canon.co.uk/pro/stories/eos-r-system-faqs/

2 minutes ago, Django said:

Actually it is quite the opposite. Canon Raw Lite is natively supported inside Davinci & Premiere (drag n drop) and FCPX via plug-in.

ProRes Raw is currently only supported by FCPX (with Avid & Premiere future support announced)

Perhaps I was not sufficiently clear when t I referred to the 'friendliness' of the codec.  Few have found Canon Cinema Raw Lite friendly to work with in the sense I intended, which is to say that it poses a heavy load on the processor and is not straightforward to grade (unlike the XFAVC codec produced by the C300 Mk.II, say, which most find very agreeable).  Of course, ProResRaw is too new to feature in any but Apple's own fcpx to date.  But it has been designed as a particularly friendly codec to work with.  I'd be very surprised if Apple didn't deliver on this promise (it's the sort of thing their good at).

Of course, this is no reflection on your own experience with Canon's Cinema raw lite - if you find it good n friendly then all well n good.

3 hours ago, Andrew Reid said:

What makes it better than the S1H?

The Canon badge?

Or is it the $6000 price?

Main positives re S1H:

1. Near-bullet-proof AF (Canon and Sony's video AF are coalescing in being as good as each other, only in slightly different ways)

2. Internal Raw (S1H raw will be external to Atomos)

Negatives re S1H:

1. No IBIS [though Canon are said to be working on IBIS for an EOSR (X) version - who knows when this will come - in combination with lens OIS and 'digital' stabilisation].  1DXIII will have no IBIS; I only make this footnote in respect of the likely EOS R equivalent of this DSLR.

2. Canon's Cinema raw lite (as per C200) is not a NLE-friendly codec; the ProRes Raw that will come from an S1H feeding a Ninja V (post the planned S1H ProRes raw upgrade) is likely to be much more pleasant to work with.

A couple of posters have asked about the crop in 4k.  Given that the 4k crop of the 1DX Mk.II is 1.3, we can be certain that the 1DX Mk.IV will have a crop of 1.3 or less - it would be so wantonly alien to Canon's modus operandi to do something so disruptive on their 'most pro' body like causing pros to have to buy a whole new set of lenses by switching from 1.3x in an existing model to (say the crazy) 1.74x of the EOS R/5DIV in the next version of that same model.

For me, the fascinating comparison - in terms of positioning - is with Sony.  The Panasonic S1H is a video-centric beast of wonder - very much the one-off space alien at the current time (and plaudits to Panasonic for producing such a model).  But where is Sony, the disruptor-in-chief or yore?  In the last 6 months they have produced new versions of their A9 and A7RIV cameras, both of which could have featured 10 bit (at least to a Ninja V) and more in terms of upgrades to the video specs.  Even if the compact dimensions of the A7 bodies meant that heat dissipation precluded internal 10 bit 4:2:2 at a decent bitrate, they could have provided this externally.  At the same time, the previously PR-savvy Sony let rumors run wild about the new cameras, such that the (real) improvements in other areas were overshadowed by the failure to provide even half of the expected video bit-depth, sub-sampling and bitrate improvements.

22 hours ago, Deadcode said:

It's the same as it works on Sony for SLOG

ISO640 base iso for vlog is underexposed ISO100 by 2.66EV, and adjusted gamma.

Why 640? because with VLOG the 32% grey lands where it should with proper exposure and the highlight DR till clipping is counted from middle grey.

The base ISO values are measured like this, and this is the reason why the (base) ISO values differ in different picture styles.

So in photo mode RAW: ISO100 / ISO640 are the base ISO values

HLG: ISO400/2500

VLOG: ISO640/4000

Very clear explanation - thanks a lot!

A different topic from the recent ones, but still very much within the domain of the thread overall...  The S1H has a dual gain structure, with two native ISOs, of 640 and 4,000.  Probably my question stems from a misapprehension on my part but, in asking it, it is likely that someone with much more technical insight will be able to put me right!  Does the S1H's lower native ISO of 640 mean that anything taken at an ISO lower than 640 (whether stills or video) will be inferior compared to its having been taken at ISO640 (and with an ND filter used, say)?  In effect, I am asking whether the 'lowest native ISO' of 640 means that anything taken at lower than ISO 640 will have been subjected to digital gain reduction from an 'actual' ISO640 (e.g. you set to ISO320 but the S1H is actually shooting at ISO640 then reducing the exposure by one stop digitally).  The latter would seem so odd (in terms of quality of shots at under ISO640), yet I can't understand on the face of it how a dual gain such as this can function otherwise...Unless there is additionally a true 'base ISO' of 100 (not mentioned)... Any thoughts welcome!  

55 minutes ago, Danyyyel said:

Having used the z6, I personally don't know the criticism some have. I cannot say how much I like the quality I get out of it. This is an absolute beauty of a video shot entirely on the z6.

 

Thank you; this is a lovely film.  The end credits detail each lens and setting used.  Since there is no further qualification of the settings used, may we conclude that this was shot internally in 8 bit 4k (not in N-log 10 bit externally)?

2 hours ago, Krotor said:

Thanks for the info, Dirk! Nikon sure did a good job with the Nikon Z6 considering it's first ff mirror-less attempt with pretty good video quality, really good IBIS for first attempt and auto-focus capability in video mode that Nikon hadn't been able to get around Until Z series. But then again the offerings from other brands were already ahead of Z6 in many regards. I hope Nikon does updates it's auto-focus capability during video when paired with an external recorder to record 10 bit N-log and when the raw capability arrives. I would even go with Blackmagic Pocket 6k but then the poor battery life and lack of IBIS and no auto-focus (At least for now I do need a decent auto-focus for the kind of work I intend to do) pushed me away from it. And I do need a photography ff camera as well so Nikon Z6, for the time being, fits the list of my needs for the money. 

I think there are many users in a similar position...in many ways the Z6 is a good fit (particularly for those of us with lots of F mount glass) but Nikon's effort seems to have been disjoint...the battery grip is only about to be released (having been announced as 'coming soon' at the time of the Z6/Z7 launch in summer 2018), the ProRes Raw is delayed, it has transpired that AF and IBIS when piping 10 bit externally are much less responsive... I agree with you that, overall, the Z6 was a fine first effort in FF mirrorless from Nikon.  Yet the gaps and inconsistencies make you wonder about the degree of commitment from the very top of the company (not least since Nikon is the one maker without a high-margin cinema line of video cameras to shield).  Such a 'rookie error' as omitting any metering gauge from Live View/video makes you question their internal processes, too...doesn't someone notice such a bizarre omission at some point during the new product commissioning process??!  And yet...I like very much the quality of the 10 bit N-log images that I've seen.  The 8 bit internal 4:2:0 looks to have quite harsh highlight rolloff and limited DR (even by 8 bit standards vs other FF cameras) but there are occasions when it's sufficient, and low light is very good indeed.

2 hours ago, Krotor said:

Thanks for the helpful response, Geoff! At the moment, at this price point, Nikon Z6 is really tempting to me. Autofocus in video is an important factor for me at the moment and I gather from numerous sources that Z6's autofocus is pretty good. What's your finding on Nikon Z6's auto-focus capability? If budget were no concern to me then I'd probably invest in a panasonic S1H in addition to a Nikon Z6, but at the moment I'm really tempted to get a Z6 as I gather from Andrew that color grading Z6 8 bit video is a lot easier than from other cameras' videos. Does Nikon Z6 feel a better built camera to you compared to sony A7III? So, I guess I shouldn't be concerned about Z6's viewfinder quality according to you. Would you prefer optical viewfinder or Nikon Z6 viewfinder?

That's true. What's your experience with Nikon Z6? 

Reviews of the Z6 when feeding 10 bit N-log to a Ninja V (or similar external recorder) suggest that AF slows down a *lot* when used in this way; IBIS performance also suffers (versus internal 8 bit 4k recording, as if the processor has its hands too darned busy with the 10 bit N-log to have much capacity for managing AF and IBIS).  However, the Atomos CEO recently 'leaked' news that a near-future firmware update will see improvements to the Z6's AF (see, for example, https://***URL removed***/forums/thread/4427659 ).  Is it likely that the impending firmware to which Atomos is referring will see AF when exporting 10 bit N-log improved to a level comparable to internal 8 bit recording?