rawshooter

In the early 2000s, the British experimental filmmaker John Smith made a series of videos made in hotel rooms, each of them shot in only one of them:
He also made this brilliant 16mm film in London, in 1976:
 
 

The sad truth is that, in order to scan 35mm and medium format stills in best quality, you need dedicated high-end film scanners like the ones made by Nikon (Coolscan) and Hasselblad (Flextight). Nikon unfortunately stopped manufacturing the Coolscans many years ago. Today, they are sought-after items costing up to $2000 on Ebay, with many models needing SCSI or Firewire connections. Hasselblad scanners cost about $15,000.
All affordable solutions on the market, flatbed scanners (like the Epson Perfection series or the Reflecta budget film scanners) do not render the full quality of film. Solutions for digitizing film with a camera and a macro lens like the Nikon ES-2 lens adapter are rather flimsy.

It shoots 24fps but not C4K. 

Use Slimraw instead to recompress the CinemaDNG to smaller file sizes. Cineform Raw is a sparsely supported and pretty much a dead format.

Visit the Dr. Caligari exhibition at Deutsche Kinemathek film museum: https://www.deutsche-kinemathek.de/de/besuch/ausstellungen/du-musst-caligari-werden-das-virtuelle-kabinett
Also check out the program of Arsenal film theater in the same building, which will show repeat screenings of the Forum section of this year's Berlin film festival, among others: https://www.arsenal-berlin.de/en/home.html
 
There are two foto museums, CO Berlin: https://www.co-berlin.org/article/exhibitions and Helmut Newton Foundation with a recommendable exhibition on performance artists and photography: https://helmut-newton-foundation.org/en/
 

 

Sigma fp with CinemaDNG is excellent for low light, especially if you denoise with Neat Video Pro.

Sigma fp with CinemaDNG is excellent for low light, especially if you denoise with Neat Video Pro.

Visit the Dr. Caligari exhibition at Deutsche Kinemathek film museum: https://www.deutsche-kinemathek.de/de/besuch/ausstellungen/du-musst-caligari-werden-das-virtuelle-kabinett
Also check out the program of Arsenal film theater in the same building, which will show repeat screenings of the Forum section of this year's Berlin film festival, among others: https://www.arsenal-berlin.de/en/home.html
 
There are two foto museums, CO Berlin: https://www.co-berlin.org/article/exhibitions and Helmut Newton Foundation with a recommendable exhibition on performance artists and photography: https://helmut-newton-foundation.org/en/
 

 

"SIGMA is also developing firmware Ver.1.02, which corrects card errors when using certain SD cards, and introduces added lens aberration correction processing. This is scheduled to be released on Wednesday 18th March 2020."
I wonder whether this will fix the manual exposure bug. Doesn't sound like it...

I finally tested SlimRaw (trial version) with Wine and Debian 10, and it works like a charm!

I finally tested SlimRaw (trial version) with Wine and Debian 10, and it works like a charm!

The problem is that Canon, like all big camera manufacturers, uses an ASIC architecture for the camera electronics and signal processing: single-purpose boards where most functions are hard-wired, allowing smaller bodies, less cooling and lower manufacturing costs in high volumes.
To implement ProRes, Canon would need to develop a new ASIC from scratch, which is expensive, and is only done every couple of camera generations, with one ASIC for all current Canon SLR and mirrorless cameras.
Blackmagic, Arri and RED and other smaller manufacturers use FPGA instead of ASIC: fully programmable boards (or mini computers) where new codecs and functions can be implemented in software. While FPGAs are more flexible and cheaper to develop initially, they are larger, require more cooling andbigger camera housings, and are more expensive to manufacture per piece than ASICs.
The Blackmagic Pocket Cinema 4K and 6K cameras are good examples for those advantages and disadvantages of the FPGA architecture.
The Sigma fp is a good example for the advantages of ASIC (smaller body with a full frame sensor), but also for the disadvantages (lots of limitations that likely can't be fixed in firmware).
 

The problem is that Canon, like all big camera manufacturers, uses an ASIC architecture for the camera electronics and signal processing: single-purpose boards where most functions are hard-wired, allowing smaller bodies, less cooling and lower manufacturing costs in high volumes.
To implement ProRes, Canon would need to develop a new ASIC from scratch, which is expensive, and is only done every couple of camera generations, with one ASIC for all current Canon SLR and mirrorless cameras.
Blackmagic, Arri and RED and other smaller manufacturers use FPGA instead of ASIC: fully programmable boards (or mini computers) where new codecs and functions can be implemented in software. While FPGAs are more flexible and cheaper to develop initially, they are larger, require more cooling andbigger camera housings, and are more expensive to manufacture per piece than ASICs.
The Blackmagic Pocket Cinema 4K and 6K cameras are good examples for those advantages and disadvantages of the FPGA architecture.
The Sigma fp is a good example for the advantages of ASIC (smaller body with a full frame sensor), but also for the disadvantages (lots of limitations that likely can't be fixed in firmware).
 

The problem is that Canon, like all big camera manufacturers, uses an ASIC architecture for the camera electronics and signal processing: single-purpose boards where most functions are hard-wired, allowing smaller bodies, less cooling and lower manufacturing costs in high volumes.
To implement ProRes, Canon would need to develop a new ASIC from scratch, which is expensive, and is only done every couple of camera generations, with one ASIC for all current Canon SLR and mirrorless cameras.
Blackmagic, Arri and RED and other smaller manufacturers use FPGA instead of ASIC: fully programmable boards (or mini computers) where new codecs and functions can be implemented in software. While FPGAs are more flexible and cheaper to develop initially, they are larger, require more cooling andbigger camera housings, and are more expensive to manufacture per piece than ASICs.
The Blackmagic Pocket Cinema 4K and 6K cameras are good examples for those advantages and disadvantages of the FPGA architecture.
The Sigma fp is a good example for the advantages of ASIC (smaller body with a full frame sensor), but also for the disadvantages (lots of limitations that likely can't be fixed in firmware).
 

FPGA as well. 

The problem is that Canon, like all big camera manufacturers, uses an ASIC architecture for the camera electronics and signal processing: single-purpose boards where most functions are hard-wired, allowing smaller bodies, less cooling and lower manufacturing costs in high volumes.
To implement ProRes, Canon would need to develop a new ASIC from scratch, which is expensive, and is only done every couple of camera generations, with one ASIC for all current Canon SLR and mirrorless cameras.
Blackmagic, Arri and RED and other smaller manufacturers use FPGA instead of ASIC: fully programmable boards (or mini computers) where new codecs and functions can be implemented in software. While FPGAs are more flexible and cheaper to develop initially, they are larger, require more cooling andbigger camera housings, and are more expensive to manufacture per piece than ASICs.
The Blackmagic Pocket Cinema 4K and 6K cameras are good examples for those advantages and disadvantages of the FPGA architecture.
The Sigma fp is a good example for the advantages of ASIC (smaller body with a full frame sensor), but also for the disadvantages (lots of limitations that likely can't be fixed in firmware).
 

I watched the download.
12bit off a 14bit sensor creates problems with dynamic range if the sensor values are stored as linear values. Blackmagic, as far as I know, encodes 12bit raw values with a logarithmic function and thus preserves more dynamic range.
The Sigma fp's sensor should, by itself, have no worse dynamic range than the sensors of most other tested cameras...

From the outdoor scene it's almost impossible to judge (too much handheld, too much background blur, too much out-of-focus shooting, lack of fine textures/details).
 
From the studio scene:
It can't be 1 (because the scaling/downsampling of small details/text is too clean compared to the Sigma's odd Bayer-to-Bayer downscaling); it's unlikely 2 (because details in this image look too artificially sharp, like it was shot with a conventional codec) It can't be 3 (for the same reasons as 1) It could be 4 - because the fine details are so blurry, just as with the 4K RAW from the 6K sensor of the fp. It can't be 5 (for the same reasons as 1 & 3) It can't be 6 (see above, although there's moiré in the fine details) It can't be 7 (see above) It can't be 8 (see above) It might be 9 because fine details are blurrier and showing moiré, but still too good IMHO So either 4 or 9, more likely 4.
 
From the overexposed studio scene:
4 looks likely, since the Sigma fp really has no log profile and no highlight roll-off to speak of when the image clips. 9 looks too good for being that overexposed... So I'd say it's 4. The weird flashing artifacts of the underexposed studio scene are an indicator of the fp as well, if this was shot with the old firmware.
 
- If it's 4 indeed, then it confirms what we already observed; that the Sigma fp has rather poor Raw video quality for a full frame camera and is significantly worse than the rest. If it's not 4, it would be a pleasant surprise.

From the outdoor scene it's almost impossible to judge (too much handheld, too much background blur, too much out-of-focus shooting, lack of fine textures/details).
 
From the studio scene:
It can't be 1 (because the scaling/downsampling of small details/text is too clean compared to the Sigma's odd Bayer-to-Bayer downscaling); it's unlikely 2 (because details in this image look too artificially sharp, like it was shot with a conventional codec) It can't be 3 (for the same reasons as 1) It could be 4 - because the fine details are so blurry, just as with the 4K RAW from the 6K sensor of the fp. It can't be 5 (for the same reasons as 1 & 3) It can't be 6 (see above, although there's moiré in the fine details) It can't be 7 (see above) It can't be 8 (see above) It might be 9 because fine details are blurrier and showing moiré, but still too good IMHO So either 4 or 9, more likely 4.
 
From the overexposed studio scene:
4 looks likely, since the Sigma fp really has no log profile and no highlight roll-off to speak of when the image clips. 9 looks too good for being that overexposed... So I'd say it's 4. The weird flashing artifacts of the underexposed studio scene are an indicator of the fp as well, if this was shot with the old firmware.
 
- If it's 4 indeed, then it confirms what we already observed; that the Sigma fp has rather poor Raw video quality for a full frame camera and is significantly worse than the rest. If it's not 4, it would be a pleasant surprise.

From the outdoor scene it's almost impossible to judge (too much handheld, too much background blur, too much out-of-focus shooting, lack of fine textures/details).
 
From the studio scene:
It can't be 1 (because the scaling/downsampling of small details/text is too clean compared to the Sigma's odd Bayer-to-Bayer downscaling); it's unlikely 2 (because details in this image look too artificially sharp, like it was shot with a conventional codec) It can't be 3 (for the same reasons as 1) It could be 4 - because the fine details are so blurry, just as with the 4K RAW from the 6K sensor of the fp. It can't be 5 (for the same reasons as 1 & 3) It can't be 6 (see above, although there's moiré in the fine details) It can't be 7 (see above) It can't be 8 (see above) It might be 9 because fine details are blurrier and showing moiré, but still too good IMHO So either 4 or 9, more likely 4.
 
From the overexposed studio scene:
4 looks likely, since the Sigma fp really has no log profile and no highlight roll-off to speak of when the image clips. 9 looks too good for being that overexposed... So I'd say it's 4. The weird flashing artifacts of the underexposed studio scene are an indicator of the fp as well, if this was shot with the old firmware.
 
- If it's 4 indeed, then it confirms what we already observed; that the Sigma fp has rather poor Raw video quality for a full frame camera and is significantly worse than the rest. If it's not 4, it would be a pleasant surprise.

The company is based in Bavaria...

The company is based in Bavaria...

In the end, all the free/Open Source conversion programs - including Handbrake and Staxrip - are just graphical user interfaces for ffmpeg, and will thus yield the same results and performance. So one can simply stick with the tool whose user interface one prefers - or use ffmpeg directly on the command line. (Which provides more advanced functions such as ProRes and DNxHR encoding...)

The choice of codec and the preset makes no difference for the resulting file size. 
You simply use a tool like this one:
https://www.dr-lex.be/info-stuff/videocalc.html (Video Bitrate Calculator)
...which calculates the video and audio bitrate for you, then you use Handbrake/ffmpeg, specify the same two bitrates for the encoding, and choose 2-pass (possibly with "turbo first pass" option) encoding for the highest accuracy of your video matching the desired file size.