TomTheDP

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. 

Plenty of Star Wars BTS to see what camera they were using. I doubt they need to do trickery when you have Star Wars money. I imagine they went digital for certain VFX shots though. 

11 hours ago, IronFilm said:

 

Similar here. After the ARRI 35 / Mini / LF (which are all still very high priced), then the AMIRA would be the one I'd want. 

 

Top Gun 2 didn't use film, it was shot almost entirely on VENICE. 

Where did you read that?

Take a look at this list:

https://www.premiumbeat.com/blog/cameras-behind-oscar-nominated-films/

Only one movie on that list was shot on film! And only because the director pushed hard for it. 

It is possibly my experiences in NZ are radically different, as we are a vert remote country with no commercial film labs. 

So I'm sure LA does more film movies than we do, but I do suspect that being shot on film is still very much the niche minority. 

32bit float internal recording??? Where did you read that. I don't believe it does that. 

Oh shit, I thought It had heard it had 32bit internal recording. Sadly it looks like I am wrong. 

After watching Top Gun 2 I remember looking at the spec list on IMDB and seeing 35mm film listed, but looking at it again I only see the Venice. I don't know what I have been smoking lol. It makes sense as it looked pretty digital aside from the film grain, which was added in post it seems. 

The last Jurassic World film was shot on film. Obviously Nolan and Tarantino always shoot on film. But yeah you're right it's pretty uncommon over all. Although I feel it's made somewhat of a comeback. The last Star Wars trilogy was shot on film. I guess for faster turn around stuff like most streaming films/shows it really isn't an option. 

 

2 hours ago, Django said:

General rule? there are no rules, only format choices and he explained his motivations. Of course its personal, but I think other people can relate. I know I can.. YMMV.

He also mentions tight spaces and narrow locations like shooting hallways etc. Going full frame means you don't have to step down to a wider focal length when you simply can't physically back up the camera to compensate for the S35 crop. Stepping down from 35mm to 24mm adds quite a bit of distortion. an alternative is to use a speed booster, but here again we're talking reasons for going FF.

I assume you could get a zero distortion fast 24mm lens that would look about the same. Not many lenses that can do faster than 1.4 without compromising the image though. 

In my price bracket I just prefer 35mm vintage still lenses over cheaper S35 cine lens options. 

2 minutes ago, kye said:

I disagree - those sensors are better because they're more recent.  The challenge is that 1) older FF cameras didn't shoot video, and 2) in stills cameras the FF cameras were the most expensive.

Most discussions also involve an element of "FF gives shallower DoF" only it's usually not spelled out like that, but instead it's phrased as "more cinematic" or some other nebulous thing that really just boils down to shallow DoF.  This is because FF lenses are made to have shallower DoF than lenses for other systems, but that's just a quirk of history rather than a fundamental limitation - they could have been made similarly for other sensor sizes but they just weren't.

FF does gather slightly more light, and all else being equal, that gives lower noise and therefore higher DR, but that means that in a decade or two we'll just be arguing about FF vs LF and the manufacturers will be trying to sell us 16K LF cameras and people will be saying how the cinema standard is FF (having forgotten about S35 completely) but the LF-Bros will be taking about how only the LF sensors can use AI to adjust the aperture to keep both eyes of a mosquito in focus at the same time and FF can't do that, and that's completely essential to them and that Sony will go bankrupt if they don't go LF dynamic mosquito aperture AF.

I am not sure what you are trying to say.

All the Alexa cameras before the 35 share the same sensor, the sensor just gets bigger and hence more resolution. Finer grain equals the appearance of less noise. Again the Alexa 35 changes this as it isn't the ALEV3 sensor. It's the cleanest and highest dynamic range Arri camera so far. This is what I find interesting. Will people choose the full frame LF which has worse high ISO performance, worse dynamic range, less color depth, and less accurate color reproduction just to get the FF FOV?

My point was this is the first time where the best sensor on the market is a S35 sensor with no sign of ARRI putting out a new FF sensor. We'll see what the big boys go with, time will tell. 

To be fair the full frame craze may just be because the best sensors have been full frame. The RED Monstro was superior to the helium, helium had a green cast in the shadows. The Alexa LF sensor was superior to the S35 variant being higher resolution, smaller pixels, finer grain, better high iso performance. There was no S35 variant of the Venice, well you could shoot cropped in 4k, but again you get better performance with full sensor in 6k.

The Alexa 35 is now the best sensor on the market and is also S35. Interesting. 

Back to the FX30, the C70 kicks it's butt in everyway, but the AF on the C70 is subpar, I have seen it first hand. Would be nice if Sony was actually innovative and gave us an affordable S35 mini Cine Camera with ND's. Could be a lot worse though. 

5 minutes ago, Django said:

that use to be the case but I think since the C200, FS5 and now BM6K Pro, C70 or even FX6, that is no longer the case. They have great battery life so you can stay away from Vmount. Built-in NDs mean you can avoid a matte box. And stellar AF avoids the need for a follow focus rig. A lot of DPs do love to over rig their cameras and that's fine, just not my ethos. I usually strip them down to the bare minimum, I like fast energetic shoots to keep the momentum going. Obviously you can't do that with URSA Mini, RED & ARRI. You need a crew if you wanna be comfortable. Different scenarios. Different applications. Different results also.

I don't really consider any of those cameras cinema cameras but maybe I am being snobby. If it can make it into a theater I guess you can't say it is not cinema though. 

1 hour ago, Django said:

Not sure what all this ARRI talk is doing in a FX30 thread but ok I'll bite. 

Locally, I've notice ARRI Classics are sitting for weeks/months on the marketplace, basically until the price hits rock-bottom.

They're usually beat up as hell with very high mileage. I guess they're built like tanks but like second hand luxury cars I'm always weary of spending couple thousand and end up having an expensive paperweight if a major fail were to happen.

Not to mention the giant form factor, not very liberating. unless you're shooting (budget) feature films I can't imagine a scenario where you'd pull up with this type of rig in 2022 lol

I think it's just relating to the S35 sensors and the Alexa 35.

I have noticed Classics sitting for a long time, but it's the same with the XT or Amiras. The market for these types of cameras is a lot more niche. Of course the Classic is at the bottom of the barrel for ARRI cameras being the oldest and first one. 

In terms of projects where you use actual cinema cameras most of the rigs end up being pretty big and bulky. The Venice or Amira are pretty similar in size. I do use my classic for corporate stuff, I have even shot a wedding with it, albeit a short one. 

In terms of the FX30 though I do think the recent Fuji releases are more interesting and better in almost everyway. But for auto focus nothing beats Sony and if you need a B-cam for any of the Sony cine cameras again this is a great option. 

In terms of glass too it makes sense to stick to a single system unless you are just using all manual glass. 

Sony is kind of killing it if you look at their entire line up. From the A7S3 to the FX6 to the Venice. 

If I had to just rock with a single camera it would probably be the XH2S, though I do like my Sigma FP a lot. 

 

9 hours ago, IronFilm said:

Nah, it is extremely rare for Netflix productions to be shot on film. 

But yes, a lot of Netflix shoots have been using the LF because 4K is forced upon them as a requirement. 

For productions without the forced requirement, then LF cameras are much less common. 

Hours don't matter for digital cameras. 
(how it was used is what matters)

 

I'd much much rather have an AMIRA than a Classic. (except for the cost 😕 ) 

Being able to use anamorphics is another reason an XT would go for more. 

Although there are Classics that do 4:3, but they tend to for a little more, and are never the cheapest. 

The PLUS does 4:3, the classic sensor is 16:9 unless they were doing upgrades at some point. You can get Classics fitted with the XR module, which gives you 2.8k RAW, but no 4:3 or 3.2k. 

The classic in my opinion is not a bad choice for small budget features. I just used one on a short 7 day feature and didn't find it getting in the way. I don't think people realize that the OG classic sensor is basically the same as the Alexa mini. I do plan on getting the Amira at some point, it is defiantly the best run and gun ARRI camera besides the 35. Although I think the Amira would still be better for shoulder rig setups. 

Yeah Netflix doesn't shoot film as far as I know of, but for big Hollywood it's the LF or Film usually. The Venice gets some use but even on Top Gun 2 it was only used for cockpit shots, the rest was film. I honestly think we'll see way less RED usage now that Arri has both the LF and 35 as 4k options, for higher end stuff that is. 

I am really just talking really high end Hollywood. Yes you get a lot of big indie films that win festivals shooting on the OG mini or RED. 

I am still very interested to see where the Alexa 35 puts everything. It is a way better choice than both the mini LF or S35 mini, just in terms of handling. It's basically better in every way. For low budget you get higher ISO options that aren't as noisy, for bigger productions you have a camera that is suited way better for AC's, 32bit float internal recording. I suppose the price is still going to put it outside of a large amount of productions.

That said the Venice is actually similar to the Alexa 35 in terms of body design and you get compressed RAW and high iso options. It is a bit heavier, but with the benefit of full frame 6k or 4k S35 options. The Alexa 35 dynamic range kicks the Venice's butt though. 

ARRI is still the golden standard and I have to say I'd rather shoot with the mini or Amira than the Venice despite the downsides. I am kind of loopy though. 

4 hours ago, IronFilm said:

When you look at the cameras winning Oscars, it isn't exclusively dominated by ARRI LF cameras. 

S35 remains very popular at the highest levels. (funnily enough, each time I have worked with an ARRI Mini LF, it has been on a smaller sized production!)

Oscars aren't but movies that you see in theater or big TV/netflix type stuff are almost always the LF or Film.

You see Amiras at 14 grand but they have like 7000+ hours. 

You can find a classic for 2k hours for 4500 for the entire kit. XT's are staying a bit higher though probably because 3.2k raw at 120fps is still more commercially viable than HD even though the difference is next to nothing as downsampling retains almost all the detail. 

1 hour ago, IronFilm said:

For me personally (as a Sound Mixer, who works with a wide range of DoPs), I more often work with the OG Alexa Mini, then the Mini LF. 

And even when there is a "full frame" camera on set, such as a VENICE or FX9, then it isn't uncommon it is being used in S35 mode (as was the case on last weekend's film) so they can use it with the S35 lenses of their choice. 

I think it depends on the tier you are working in. For like bigger theatrical releases it all seems to be the LF. I mean I definitely work a lot with S35 but I am not Hollywood. I am probably sounding pretty arrogant right now as Hollywood isn't the only place in the world making films, especially nowadays. 

1 hour ago, ade towell said:

I like shallow dof but only when it's motivated ie adds to the story. I just realised it's the same director who did 300 - I hated that too and mainly cause it was basically actors plus some cgi background. I think the constant ultra dof in Army of the Dead made it feel similar - like it had all been filmed in front of green screen, there was nothing that would ground a character in their environment, they seemed completely seperated from each other, makes me feel kind of nauseous after a while. Maybe I'm just too old and sensitive. Anyway yes sorry back to the fx30...

They also did do a lot of green screen, one of the main actors was completely removed from the film and replaced later with someone else lol. 

In regards to the Sony it would be nice if it was priced even a bit cheaper $1500 territory. 

Why didn't they just go all out and give us open gate?