TomTheDP

Looks beautiful. Downsampled 4k to HD is hard to distinguish from HD imo. I'd recommend rendering in 4k to get that extra YouTube bitrate. 

I am waiting on Adorama's brand CLAR to put something out in the 1000w range. I have found their lights to be excellent in durability and light quality wise. 

7 hours ago, kye said:

Thanks, this is enormously helpful.  It's so hard to judge things like DR from just looking at footage and even if someone tells you the difference then that's often not helpful either as I have no idea what the stops are when I shoot, but your descriptions give me a sense of it, so thanks.

It seems that actually it wouldn't be an issue for me as I am basically shooting in similar situations to you, and while maybe I might have an outside/inside shot be very different, it's not a normal occurrence.

I would be interested to see how much the streaking is noticeable in practical situations. The RED raptor has a streaking issue due to its "stitched together" sensors.

45 minutes ago, kye said:

I guess I never trusted him, so was never betrayed.  In terms of being neutral and even-handed, facts are always neutral and even-handed, so that part hasn't changed - unless he's outright lying of course.

To me, reviews contain facts and fluff, with the facts being the only useful things.  The challenge was always what facts were missing, which is always a problem because it doesn't matter how deeply a camera is reviewed, they're never going to cover every aspect.

When I first got into video, I did a bunch of reading and came to (what I thought) were reasonable conclusions.  Those were that 4K, bitrate and AF were the most important things, oh how little I knew!  Could I have saved myself from going down that particular dead-end road by trusting the right person?  No.  No reviewer was saying what I needed to hear, and the ones that I later found that were pointing in (at least) partially the right direction would have been waaaay out of the realm of what I was ready for (Steve Yedlin for instance).

It's a process, you have to learn for yourself, and unless you're a YouTuber making camera reviews, then the YouTubers making camera reviews couldn't possibly steer you in the right direction, even if they were squeaky clean.

I don't think we are spoiled.

Cameras have gotten more and more features, but the manufacturers aren't giving people what they want, they're improving the specs that drive TV sales and then marketing the crap out of them in order to brainwash the customers into thinking the new features are actually desirable.

Did you see the two recent videos by Crimson Engine about cinema cameras?  I thought he did a great job.  The first one is what the manufacturers are pushing, and the second is what people actually want.  Spoiler, there's very very little overlap.

 

Spoiled in regards to what people had to work with not too long ago in this price bracket. I grew up with VHS home video, which is barely watchable now. I now own probably the best digital cinema camera ever made and also have a myrid of hybrid cameras that shoot videos that are remarkably close in quality to that said camera, at least to the untrained eye. Couldn't say that when I first got into this, at least not without a lot more money. 

1 hour ago, MrSMW said:

Agreed. 

I’m not really bothered about people ‘telling me stuff’ and even less, parroting what someone else has said, but people who ‘show me stuff’.

If I look at the stuff I am being shown, I can decide whether I like it no matter what sizzle anyone puts on it.

The worst ‘reviews’ are someone waving an older model camera that isn’t even the one in question and if you haven’t used the thing, it’s not a review but a highly dubious opinion. That might be total BS.

But as we always say, none of this stuff being released is actually bad. Artificially crippled in some cases and often frustratingly so, but more a case of how well or whether it meets your needs. Or not.

I agree. It is definitely also important to hold companies accountable for what they make. That probably sounds privileged as we are so spoiled when it comes to cameras now. They are raking in the cash though so why not keep them on their toes. 

I have always been a Panasonic guy as I felt they always pushed forward when it came to image quality and new features. I have felt the same with Fuji. Sony and Canon have always felt more strategic in what they put out, in a bad way. Hard to escape from their state of the art auto focus. 

Nikon's current in camera RAW release is exciting though and overdue. Hopefully that pushes Sony, Panasonic, and Canon to include RAW in all their models. 

The BM pocket 4k is still a super dope B-cam or budget A-cam. It's easy to match to almost any camera because you have the light 4k compressed RAW internal. You can't get anything with that capability for the same price. 

1 hour ago, newfoundmass said:

I've defended Gerald a lot on this forum, but when you do those analyses and then completely downplay the results or say they're not important because you're in the bag for Sony, you do more harm misleading people than the reviewers that just gush about how great every camera that is sent to them is. He built a reputation for his technical, long form reviews that were neutral and even-handed. Now that reputation is used to shill a company. It's dishonest, far more so than those that just give their opinions. And whether we like it or not, these people DO influence a lot of people's purchasing decisions. Whether you're one of those people or not, his move from being objective to significantly less so should be disappointing.

I guess I don't care a ton because I only really look at the technical side of his reviews. He is sometimes the first person to post dynamic range and rolling shutter tests, although he doesn't use a measurement for RS so its not super useful. 

My brothers have been binging halloween movies, they just finished the entire Chucky series lol. 

Definitely one of the goofier horror film series. Makes me miss the days before everything was CG though 

6 hours ago, Robert Patts said:

Are cameras that shoot PRR not an option? If so , you have the Fuji XH2S with very low RS.  

The A7S3 or FX3 also have low RS. 

The Pana S1/S1H/S5 also has pretty low RS in S35 crop mode. 

20 hours ago, Django said:

If you're referring to the Alexa Classic, 2K ProRes HQ was closer to 300Mbps and it could shoot up to 430Mbps in 4444.

Second gen Alexa XT really changed the game though with ARRIRAW /Prores XQ and resolutions up to 3.4K in OpenGate.

So I'd say "sufficient" by 2010 theatrical standards but ARRI IQ took a major bump as soon as the XT came out around 2013. 

Besides I heard there were software upgrades to give the Classic 3.2K/3.4K XQ/Open Gate so those bitrates and resolutions may have been used much earlier than 2013.

Long story short I don't know if that many features were actually shot in 2K ProRes HQ..

The difference between 3.2k the resolution being used if shooting spherical and 2.8k which is what the Alexa classic sensor uses is pretty small imo. Yes the Alexa Classic is 2k, but its downsampled from 2.8k. If you look at the difference between downsampled 2k from 2.8k and 2.8k native it is pretty much impossible to tell the difference. The benefit of shooting RAW is definitely nice, ARRI raw has more texture than prores. Of course it comes at the cost of a little more grain. I am sure the little extra info in Prores 444XQ is helpful sometimes too. To me ARRI didn't get a big boost until the LF tho. You do notice the extra detail comparing the LF to any of the previous S35 Alexas. Comparing different flavors of 3k is pretty negligible though at least in terms of resolution. 

I do think 12bit 444 makes a noticeable difference over 10 bit if you push the color at all, mainly with skin tones.


just my 2 cents 

That would suck. YouTube 1080p blows, its like 10mbps. 

The R6 would be the upgrade IMO. 

Maybe the EOS R7 but its APSC. 

I'd recommend a used Panasonic S1 over the S5. Just a better body with more features at a similar price point. 

The S1/S5 image quality in video is far superior to the EOS R. The low light performance in both video and photo is also way better, better dynamic range as well in photos. You can shoot 6k and 4k with no crop and S35 crop 4K 60 fps. 

Now it isn't going to give you Canon colors and auto focus is going to be lacking compared to the EOS R. 

 

1 hour ago, Alexis Fontana said:

My observations:

(Always shooting log)

h264/265 has too much sharpening and macro blocking - the latter especially when trying to push a vibrant photochemical look with deep film like tones. Blue and red gives up before I’d like em to. Don’t like the idea that a tiny insufficient computer does heavy compression in camera. Especially noise reduction -  in camera noise reduction needs to fuck off and die  

On Red cameras I rarely go above 8:1

BRAW rarely above 5:1

On Arri cameras I mostly shoot Prores 444 - sometimes 444 XQ. Never ArriRAW as the file sizes are too large for the kind of jobs I do (also very close to diminishing returns)

Love the Sony Venice 16-bit X-OCN(compressed??), it’s just insane how much latitude it holds.

 

422 LT - I only think about it as a deliverable format, have no idea how it looks from a Fuji camera. I think the idea of shooting 8k on a s35/LF size sensor is ridiculous, the file sizes becomes too big and hence you need to accept more compressed codecs which defeats the purpose of the so called “high resolution”. Don’t really know much about the 12k ursa but it’s another kind of sensor so not comparable right?

 

I own a pocket 6k pro, love the camera but would prefer larger photosites and 4K.

The Venice 2 has 3 different RAW compression options. 

X-OCN XT which is 965mbps 

X-OCN ST which is 660mbps 

X-OCN LT which is 389 mbps 

The RAW LT is even smaller than 4k prores 422. 

I am not sure if the older Venice has the same RAW options or not. 

I have been shooting 2k 422 a lot on my Alexa Classic. I still get the amazing highlight retention and I am not usually pushing the footage too far. It is nice to have 444 as an option though. Arri Raw in 2.8k wouldn't be terrible but it edits terribly. By far the most choppy footage I have ever encountered. 
 

In terms of vintage glass I love the Pentax 50mm 1.2 

Shooting at 1.2 isn't super practical but it definitely gives a crazy interesting look. The Pentax 50mm 1.2 is the sharpest lens at that speed I have ever used at least of the vintage variety. 

I love the Minolta 35mm f1.8. It's my favorite 35mm vintage lens I have used. Very sharp and really nice lens flares and color. I wish it was adaptable to EF mount but alas your L mount will have no issue. 

In terms of super cheap 50s the Nikon pancake 1.8 is really nice. Very sharp and super cheap. 

I do love the helios 58mm as well. 

The Pentax 20mm 2.8 is the sharpest wide angle vintage lens I have ever used. Not super cheap but not super expensive. 

The Canon FD 85mm 1.8 is really nice. Low contrast but sharp, just super lovely. 

 

4 hours ago, A_Urquhart said:

On the FX6, I have tried using 12800 and ND but have noticed the increase noise. 

Have you used the FX9, Venice or FX30? 

I personally have never used a camera with dual native ISO that had the same noise performance at the higher base ISO. I just tested the sigma FP in broad daylight at its base iso of 100 and second base of 3200. There was more noise in the shadows at 3200. 

When I used to own the Panasonic S1 I always would over expose by 1-2 stops to reduce noise when shooting at 4000 iso in dimmer light. 

Maybe Sigma and Panasonic are different than Sony, although they both use Sony sensors. 

7 minutes ago, Jordan Garcia said:

I just picked up an S5 body for $900, and I'm excited to start shooting with it. I intend to focus mainly on stills, though. Does anyone have any recommendations for prime lenses I should try and get my hands on? Thanks for suggestions! 

The magic of L mount is you can literally mount any kind of lens to it with a cheap adapter. That said it really depends what kind of stuff you'll be shooting. The Lumix lenses for the S1 line are solid if you need AF. 

26 minutes ago, BenEricson said:

The motion is kind of all garbage on the C70. It might be the DGO. I don't know. It feels a little funky.

There have also been advancements in sensors. For example, the C70 looks better in Long GOP @ 160 than the C300 Mk2 does in 400mbps. The new sensor is cleaner, sharper, with less artifacts, etc.

Yeah that is probably true in regards to sensors. The motion cadence thing is definitely confusing. I am not sure how the DGO would affect it, as the Alexa does the same thing. But I guess it's more processing hence more room for issues. 

3 minutes ago, BenEricson said:

There have certainly been advances in the last few years. The LONG GOP 4k @ 160mbps looks so damn good on the Canon C70s. It's pretty hard to tell the difference between the two.

I think it has more to do with processing than the codec itself. Of course motion will generally look better with ALL-I vs Long GOP due to the nature of the compression. But everything else comes down to processing. 

I would think aside from the manufactures choice in processing that H264 ALL-I at 200mbps in HD would match Prores 422 HQ at HD which is around 200mbps. 

28 minutes ago, A_Urquhart said:

ProAV TV did a ISO comparison of the FX30, FX3 and Pocket6K Pro. Search their channel on YouTube.

On the FX6, I find the second base ISO of 12,800 to be too high. Too big a gap between the native 800 and 12,800 plus, I really never need to shoot anywhere near 12,800! 

 

FX30 dual native ISO's of 800 and 2500 is similar to the Venice that has 500 and 2500. much more usable range for those that shoot with lights when it's pitch black.

I mean it isn't terribly hard to throw on an ND especially with the FX6 where its built in. Easier to take away light than to add it. 

The computing time made it a lot less attractive for me. Definitely works a treat though. 

6 hours ago, IronFilm said:

Has anybody seen any comparisons between the FX3 and FX30 at 12800 ISO?

As I have heard that the FX30 is a true dual ISO sensor, with both 800 & 12800 being equally clean. 

But the second sensitivity of the FX3 of 2500 ISO (i.e. basically the same as the FX30's once you adjust for equal DoF on both cameras!) I've heard isn't as clean as its lower base ISO? 

Guessing you are getting the two mixed up. The FX3 has the second native iso of 12,800. 

I have never used a dual iso camera that isn't noisier at the second native ISO. Of course this is often exaggerated as people usually use the second native ISO in very dim situations where they are underexposing half the things in the shot.

14 hours ago, newfoundmass said:

Agree with all of this. 

---

I think it's great that cameras are adding ProRes as there are clients that demand it, but the bitrates in 4K are just too much for the bulk of my work, and the editing performance on my M1 Pro MacBook Pro really isn't that much better than h.264. My modest MacBook Pro can handle four camera 4K multicam editing with color correction, titles, and motion graphics with ease. 

I haven't used h.265, but I've heard it's pretty easy to edit. 

I personally have found 10 bit H265 and H264 to be a pain to edit even on my M1 chip 16gb ram Mac. 

8 hours ago, Parker said:

For the past year or so I have been shooting almost everything in ProRes Raw on my S1, (the normal mode, not the HQ) I think it is somewhere around 2 Gbps, which is pretty insane, but shooting with one of the 2TB Angelbird SSD's to my Ninja V still gives me more than enough room, even over multi-day shoots.

I used to shoot with Red cameras quite a bit, and I did get used to the easy flexibility of the R3D files, so the ProRes Raw was such a huge upgrade for me on the S1. I love being able to dial in ISO and WB in post, and the image just has a thickness and creaminess to it that I just don't see with the internal codecs. Granted it's also generally quite a bit noisier, and completely unsharpened, so it all requires more work in post.

 

RAW is definitely a huge upgrade on the S1. I found when you set the log footage to vlog it looks different than the internal codec, but maybe that was my imagination. 

19 minutes ago, Benjamin Hilton said:

I haven't tried it yet, really want to though. I almost used a pocket 6k last year for a project, but didn't end up getting it to fit on my steady cam rig, had to bail and use a gh5 at the last minute. Really want to test b-raw though at some point, although I've heard it's really not the same as raw

That is true, its technically not RAW. You might like BRAW off the Panasonic S1. 

8 minutes ago, Benjamin Hilton said:

I feel like for most projects the 150mb/sec on the S1 is about the biggest I'd comfortably go. I never feel like I don't have enough data to work with in that codec outside of raw, but it is big enough to really eat through some hard drives. I'm still editing off of small SSDs, doing all our long term storage on cheap 8 or 12tb HDDs. I really don't find myself needing more data compression wise on most cameras, but I do always use an external monitor with my color science LUT on it, so I'm getting pretty close to the final image in camera exposure and WB wise. I would love to shoot raw just from my experience with photography, but the file sizes make it not an option outside of Red r3d. 

 

I'd have to say, I've been shooting with a lot of cameras over the years on a verity of projects including a lot of high end cinema cameras. I am really really impressed with the image out of the S1 and the a7Siii. I've been shooting with them both recently and they are really gold mojo wise. Couldn't ask for much more unless I'm going for the specific Red or Arri look. Which overall doesn't matter too much because few people even know what that means outside of a small niche of cinematographers. 

What about BRAW? 12:1 is pretty light. 

Tough question. I love shooting higher bitrates with lower resolution. The Alexa Classic 2k lets me shoot in 444 without massive files and super smooth NLE experience. Sometimes I do crave 4k recording. With the relatively cheap costs of SSDs shooting 12bit 4k on the Sigma FP is doable. Still long term storage becomes a pain the more data you rack up. Maybe I just need a better archiving system. 

I'd say when shooting 4k its nice to have 5:1 compression option, really saves you a lot of space with no noticeable loss in IQ. 

Prores 422 seems to look nice and isn't too big. Of course with 8k its pretty massive, 4k or 2.8k things aren't so bad. Prores LT is a little brittle for me. But maybe shooting 8k kind of makes up for it. 

I just can't buy into the 6k-8k hype. 4k is a sweet spot for me and I don't mind shooting HD either.