Super8

Didn't the Z6 get multiple AF updates for video and stills? Which cameras have pro AF? Is the A9 considered pro AF? or the EOS-R considered pro AF?

Will you be trying Pro Res RAW with the Z6 ? It's hard to tell if that's a viable option for 2020. 

9 hours ago, EthanAlexander said:

Sony car: super fast, super range, all the tech, only ugly paint color options.

Nikon car: great tech, durable, promised features like "external batteries for extended range" never actually get released.

Panasonic car: best suspension, most efficient, doesn't let you look through the windshield when using the accelerator.

Canon car: super sexy, built like a tank, "dual focus" lane-keep assist, can't go faster than 10 mph. After firmware update it can go faster than 10mph but only if you never touch the steering wheel.

That Sony car is a joke.

18 hours ago, IronFilm said:

For those still in the DSLR world, resisting the lure of mirrorless, then the Nikon D780 represents better price/performance value than the Canon 1D mk3 does! (which for most of us is just so expensive we can almost totally ignore its existence when it comes to discussing "DSLRs", just like I kinda pretended the Canon 1D C didn't exist back during its era! ha)

If you're a hybrid Nikon shooter, then you've now got in Nikon F mount a killer setup with a Nikon D780 / Atomos Ninja V

 

https://www.imaging-resource.com/PRODS/nikon-d780/nikon-d780A.HTM

This is very very curious.... is this the first ever DSLR with timecode I/O??? I hope so! But I won't be holding my breath. 

 

 

What excites me the MOST about the Nikon D780 announcement is that I'm looking forward to the price crash on eBay of all the D750 bodies ? Been wanting one of those for a long time. 

 

WHAT'S THE VIDEO HDR FEATURES HE TALKS ABOUT IN THE VIDEO?  (sorry caps was on).

Does the Z6 have the same HDR ability?  And how is the D780 better then the Z6?

15 hours ago, SRV1981 said:

Isn’t that what tony found in his survey of 1500 people? Bias? Plus if you read comments - after awhile that creates a certain confirmation bias. When I first saw Kraig Adams travel videos I was blown away. Then when I saw it was Sony I was like “but the colors looks good and it’s not green - how?” 

I didn't want to say anything but in Kraig Adams videos the color is all over the place.  You keep calling out his video and they're not that good.   Sony cameras can produce good color but Knightsfan pointed out the flaws better then anyone. 

9 hours ago, Mark Romero 2 said:

Sure, but the main part of the test was "blind" in that subjects didn't know which brand of camera took the photos when they were choosing from a group of photos. They just saw a number 1,2,3, or 4 without knowing which was taken by which brand. 

He DID  test for bias as well and found that Sony bias was pretty high. 

And besides, the "joke" of my post was that this was a totally "subjective" test which I only brought up because the objective test I mentioned (i.e., the vector scopes showing that the a7 III color accuracy) was labeled as subjective.

Oh, and in case anyone is going to say, "But those are jpgs and we are talking about video." Yes, but VLOG plus the Sony SLOG 2 to REC 709 Gamut is meant to replicate the Standard picture profile, which is the color science in Sony JPGs.

And again, don't get me wrong. I'm not a super big fan of Sony cameras (despite owning four of them). I liked the colors out of my D750 a lot better. Just I don't think it is right to say the colors aren't accurate.

Tony's test is flawed. He posted random shots but how many Sony pictures did he take and how did he select which one would be in the test?  The only way to do that test is to take the same number of photo's with each camera and post all pictures taken, no corrections and post all good and all bad shots.

The color in Tony's videos are way off and he used his Sony to film them.  I can't believe we are debating Sony color.

1 hour ago, androidlad said:

Leaked Japanese retail pricing for 1DX III is 880,000JPY after tax, that's equivalent of 8,140USD.

No way?

You go Canon.

7 hours ago, Mark Romero 2 said:

Well... if it is objective, then:

 

It's not subjective.

How can Tony talk about people liking Sony color when his video has horrible un-natural color?

Knightsfan - "Older Sony cameras had both issues, and with the amount of correction needed to simply even out hues across the exposure range, and correct for the atrocious WB, the 8 bit footage fell apart. It gets pasty and loses vibrance, especially in the shadows. It loses its "thickness," to use a popular term. And the compressions starts to show blocky hue variance that absolutely ruins skin tones--I imagine this last part can be mitigated with an external recorder to some degree, but no amount of pseudo-10 bit ProRes can account for WB issues and hue shifts on any camera."

Thanks for going into detail better then I could ever do.

36 minutes ago, Falk Lumo said:

Hi, you may not have been able to read the German part. I currently try to get Jungbluth redo the test with a better quality. As it is now, the quality is too low indeed to draw conclusions - as I wrote. However, done right, the test documents line skipping rather well. I did it before.

Can you show us stills from your test? Why did you ask Jungbluth to do the same test you already did?

Why would the test have to be "done right" to show line skipping?

You seem determined to show "line skipping".   Why?

1 hour ago, Geoff CB said:

Yeah I hope they finally release the damn thing, with 10-bit 60p

I don't think they can do that and keep AF active.  I hope they do announce it soon.

2 hours ago, Mark Romero 2 said:

While I prefer Nikon colors personally, I don't think it is acculturate to say that Sony color is "off." 

As per Gerald Undone, the a7 III is HIGHLY accurate when it comes to colors.

https://youtu.be/CphwVNgX32s?t=720

The Panasonic S1 needs a third-party corrective LUT to bring the colors in line.

If you color grade (correct) footage from Sony A7III, BP4K, Canon on the same timeline you'll see how far off Sony color is.

The sample video at 15:55 in Geralds video tells the story more then all the scopes that he try's to defend the A7III with. 

Color is not subjective no matter what he says.

Gerald also shows outdoor video with purple cast sky from the A7III and claims that's accurate.  All color works together and many more layers of issues that mirror-less cameras have to work with to get accurate color.  Canon captures color better then Sony and that's a fact.

It's not just skin tone but it's all color and color balance, how those colors work together. 

2 hours ago, SRV1981 said:

I’m confused on Sony color bashing. In one sense I see tons of yoda looking folks ok YouTube then I see this and want to buy one:

 

Kraig Adams in Switzerland

The drone footage has mor eDR and better color then the A7III in that video. Lol

2 hours ago, Mark Romero 2 said:

While I prefer Nikon colors personally, I don't think it is acculturate to say that Sony color is "off." 

As per Gerald Undone, the a7 III is HIGHLY accurate when it comes to colors.

https://youtu.be/CphwVNgX32s?t=720

The Panasonic S1 needs a third-party corrective LUT to bring the colors in line.

Not sure how you can like Nikon colors better and then say "per Gerald" that A7III colors are highly accurate.   His test fail when he shows actual footage.

On 1/3/2020 at 12:04 PM, Thomas Hill said:

Speaking as a  former a7iii user, I can echo what others have said. You don't gain anything from recording externally with the a7iii. 

Really, the only thing that the a7iii has over other cameras is video AF.

It's a great camera but you're not going to gain much from rigging it up.

The A7III color is still off compared to Canon or Nikon.  Panasonic has improved it's color but Sony not so much.  I've color corrected a lot of Sony footage and it gets old having to save footage that was shot on a Sony.

On 1/2/2020 at 12:06 PM, Michi said:

It likely will be the same raw format, meaning 1gbs at 4k. There‘s that Red-patent preventing more compressed raw formats...
 

A massiv crop would mean a massiv jump in resolution compared to the 1dx2, so at least that‘s rather unlikely...

But with gotchas or not: this will be a big and pricey camera, probably quite close to the C200. I wonder what kind of videoshooters would prefer a 1D to a C-Line camera. I can see it as a pricey B-Cam for highend shooters. But why pay 5-6k if you can have a Panasonic with comparable specs for less or a C200 with all the benefits for motion pictures for more or less the same price?

Panasonic cameras can't AF at all. They also don't have Canon color, etc, etc.

Ronin S

On 1/1/2020 at 6:23 PM, Falk Lumo said:

We have a long lasting conversation here about how the Z6 can deliver 4k prores raw. Now first footage emerged. I currently colloborate with a German Youtuber to shed some light on this, cf. https://youtu.be/FEGxTXC6trU and the comments by falconeye.

The point is that the Z6 does full sensor readout for full frame internal 4k (6k readout) and (as we now know) the Z6 outputs full frame 4k raw. There are 12 bit 30p full frame readout modes for 6k and probably(*) 4k (from a Sony document, (*) whether by crop or line skipping is left unspecified). However, uncropped 4k readout mode should create line skipping or binning artefacts.

Our preliminary test shows such artefacts - but only at a rather low level, cf. the video provided by Jungbluth on Dropbox. However, the quality isn't yet at a level to draw conclusions; there may be more visible artefacts hidden by not sharp enough test image quality.

The Z7 doesn't support full frame 4k raw. And it is easy to see why.

But how on earth can the Z6 support full frame 4k raw, if it isn't masqueraded 6k or line skipping? Assuming further testing indicates that there are no line skipping artefacts (too early to tell).

I downloaded the sample file from the link provided.  Are you really putting weight in the chart and text Jungbluth did?  Who is "our" in your preliminary test? I'll wait for better test from reliable sources. 

On 1/1/2020 at 9:43 PM, eleison said:

But that's the rub... so much color space, but the only use for most hollywood directors just a few years ago was to make the shots match during a scene.  That was it.  If the directors from the past wanted to "push and pull" their images, they would need to import their film into a digital format and use a modern coloring software (which they didn't have) to "color it" - in other words, they really didn't do any coloring.  Yes, there were directors that sent their films to "coloring" companies and request a certain look, but that was the exception than the norm - basically to make their films more "bright" by adding more saturation to ALL shots, or more "moody" by lower the exposure to ALL shots, etc.

Yes, but it was about resolution and not about pushing and pulling images.  However, the issue of resolution has been solved.  But now people complain about bit depth so people can "recover" the images and "color" it a certain way, but from 15 years ago to the beginning of cinema, it was never about doing this ("recovering" or "coloring").  This new definition kinda irks  me a bit.  While I'm grateful for the ability to grade and not send the footage to another company to grade, but we are way beyond what was considered a "cinema camera" from 10-15 years ago.  If we want to consider a camera "cinema", the true definition would be that the camera shot FILM.

Invent a time a time machine, and give a master director from the 2000's, 90's, 80' and earlier; a 8 bit camera from today, and they would more than happy to film their movies on it.  Their minds would be blownnnnnn..

People complain about bit depth because it's more then lacking in non cine cameras.  You can't praise film and old school cinema and then ask us to forgive today's poor color options. 

18 hours ago, Zeng said:

Arguably, film still has better color than ANY digital camera at any bit depth. So using that argument to justify 8bit camera is rather weird. But of course, you're free to shoot on 8bit camera, especially IF you like its sooc image :).

Nope.

On 12/23/2019 at 11:18 AM, heart0less said:

Here is a short spec ad done by Matteo Bertoli using P6K, Leica R lenses and 1/8 Pro Mist. 

And, my god, does this look fabulous! 

Great looking video.  The P6K is the way to go over the M4/3 P4K. 

On 12/24/2019 at 3:14 AM, zerocool22 said:

Looks pretty good indeed! but I still find their is too much detail/sharpness/resolution in the skin. Well its just a personal opinion and I even see this in hollywood movies, but when I see pores and the actual make up details it takes me out of it. I feel when the image is too clear, I notice these skin flaws, and usually when I watch movies these actors/actresses looked amazing in the past, like something unreachable ,you cannot achieve. And when the image is so clear, they look like Jenny from the block nextdoor, nothing special. And you would think that with all these details, they look more real, and you would feel even more emotion, but for me it is the exact opposite. I care less and less about them, not sure why though as I love underdog stories. 

 

Don't look for emotion when that's not what that video is about. You can take mid range detail out when you color grade, you can't add it when it wasn't recorded.

9 hours ago, KnightsFan said:

Image Signal Processor, basically just the processing of the image that the camera does. By applying noise reduction, an ISP lowers the noise floor and thus increases dynamic range, usually at the expense of resolution.

but yeah your original statement is correct:

There is no inherent reason why raw would improve dynamic range on the same camera. If their log format already captures the entire dynamic range of the ADC, then Raw would likely bring no dynamic range improvements. We'd have to test in the real world to find out (like in the video above, which is in German unfortunately).

Take a look at the video above your post.

5 hours ago, Deadcode said:

If you are experienced enough and have pro colorgrading skill in resolve, you may reach the limitations of the 10 bit LOG footage compared to RAW. 

I am talking about Premiere and FCPX users who are using LUT's to grade and call it a day.

Or Lumetri Color adjustements and calling yourself a colorist. You can barely reach the limitations of 8 bit log with these tools...

That's not how 8bit vs 10bit works.  It's not a pro only quality difference.

13 hours ago, gethin said:

the quoted values are always pretty much bulshit.  My D5300 had virtually the same dynamic range as the d800 according to DXO.  The usable dynamic range was nowhere near the same. The z7 and z6 have banding in the shadows which means you cant push them as far, and on the z6 at least the noise is not as pleasant - so again you can't push it as far (and the lower MP doesn't help either).  Until we can get someone to do a controlled test with and without th 12 bit raw i reckon all this is a big fat waste of breath ? 
One thing I will say though is that sometimes I feel like the flat image on video almost retains better highlight detail than the raw still. Making me wonder if they deliberately hobbled the raw to create a bigger gap to the z7.  

The Z6's noise pattern is actual great and I've never seen banding in the shadows? I just tested Z6 4K footage.  Where are you getting your information?

11 hours ago, gethin said:

No 14+stop on the z6.  The d800 supposedly has 13.something stops and the z6 does not reach the same levels of dr.  I get the feeling it could if they turned up the active d-lighting.  Anyhoo the blacks are way noisier than the d800, I'd guess 12 usable stops at most (which would still be awesome)

It would be nice to know if it's 14+ or just 12.   What does the eye test say?

9 hours ago, Danyyyel said:

Yep, the bashing continues, how dare a company give RAW video only in 1080p, must be Nikon, ohhhhhhh shit I did not read it well.

 

 

Another Atomos video, this one shows much more challenging colors

 

What's RAW 1080p?  Dose the Z6 do 4K RAW?  I'm confused.

13 hours ago, crevice said:

That $200 fee isn’t because of Apple or Red. That $200 fee is because of bad oversight on hardware and not planning hardware design properly from the get go by Nikon. The need for a $695 Atomos Ninja V is because of Red’s patent and the same goes for the S1H. But the S1H does not need hardware modification, because they planned properly. Regardless, neither of these things are a fault of Apple. Apple was actually fighting for us in a way - believe it or not - since they were disputing the patent, claiming you shouldn’t be able to patent shooting internal RAW. 
 

So in conclusion, this is 100 percent on them. It’s the Ninja V portion that isn’t on them or Panasonic. 

What hardware is changed out by Nikon?