TomTheDP

18 minutes ago, QuickHitRecord said:

I just bought a Scarlet-X that I am looking forward to working with. So that's my answer to the question posed in this thread. I already had lenses, batteries, and a monitor, so I purchased:

Scarlet-X brain with mini mag side module with dual fan replacement 2.0 (important!)
2x 480GB mini mags
Side grip
Red Pro top cheese plate
Red aluminum EF mount
V-mount battery solution (pretty difficult to find at a workable price!)
Nitze top handle and monitor mount

All in all, it set me back just under $3K.

I did a lot of research on the other legacy Red cameras before making this purchase. The Epic-X brains seem prone to failure. The Dragon-upgraded Epics and Scarlets have three OLPFs to choose from: Low Light (which is basically the same as the OLPF in front of the MX sensors and offers clean shadows but more limited highlights), Skintone/Highlight (nice highlight capture but noisy shadows above ISO 200), and the "Standard" OLPF which seems to fall somewhere in between the two extremes. Ultimately, I decided that clean shadows were more important to me than extra highlight range so I opted for the older MX sensor/OLPF.

Regarding crop, the more budget-friendly Scarlet-Xs are in the same boat as the Raven. The max resolution (disregarding the 12fps at 5K) on the Scarlet-X has a 1.14x crop when compared to 3perf Super35 film while he Raven has a 1.12x crop but is limited to a wider aspect ratio at that resolution. So they are pretty close in this regard. One thing to consider is that the Raven requires the ~$1K IO module if you want to plug a non-Red monitor into it, while the Scarlet comes with both SDI and HDMI ports standard. This pushed me over the edge and I decided to go with the older camera.

I did some side by side shots of the Scarlet-X with my Red One MX and have to say that I slightly prefer the image from the older camera (which is softer, cooler, and less contrasty). My original plan was to sell the R1MX, but now I'm having second thoughts.

I have been considering the Scarlet as well. I do prefer the Epic image. But Scarlet's are so cheap these days. 

1 hour ago, John Matthews said:

Well, I've decided to get the G9 ii. Should arrive around November 2. If people have questions, I'll do my best to answer.

Also, now that I've given up my CF Express Type B that I used for my GH6, I have many v30 cards, but no v60 or v90. I don't really need the highest data rates, but I want 4k 120fps. What card to I need for that? On my CF Express card, I could just do everything without thinking about it, but I'd rather not have to shell out serious money for a v90 card unless absolutely necessary. When I look at the 4k 120fps files, their only 100 Mbps in HVEC. Can a v30 card handle 5.8 open gate?

How did you feel about the GH6 btw? 

9 hours ago, IronFilm said:

However, Panasonic Varicam is only so "popular" in my personal rankings because there is one particular production company (which is massive) that I've worked for quite a lot, and they seem to like it on their shows. I for instance just got home from booming on location for a tv series using 2x Panasonic Varicam S35. Next couple of days I'll be in the studio, and they'll be using three Panasonic Varicam S35 cameras!

I'm quite sure however my experience is fairly atypical, and for others the Panasonic Varicam won't even rate in their top twenty cameras they have worked with in recent years. 

 

I am really tempted to get the Varicam LT. I definitely think it is a slept on camera. I guess the Venice really just replaced it. 

It is sort of like an Alexa mini but with a 4k sensor, dual ISO, and a more run and gun friendly body. 

I just got the Sony FX30 and Ronin RSC2. Going to try to incorporate more moving shots to my narrative work. I will also say Viltrox has a ton of really good and cheap AF lens options. 

I am considering selling my Alexa and getting a Mavic 3 instead. Really go all out with the small compact approach. It's hard to part with Alexa skintones though. 🤕

15 hours ago, kye said:

These young people, are they expressing this interest in a film-making context?  Are they film students?  

I'm curious...  I've never known what the cool kids were doing!

Yes film students who I assume many will be the next DP's and Directors. Not necessarily the people I know but just in that realm. I feel with the older generation it was trending more towards use the latest and biggest. Now things are more trending nostalgic. 

But that is just my random guess I suppose. 

I read a reddit thread where the author said that it seems like the Venice replaced the Alexa, this was a few years back. I have definitely not seen that. It seems like the LF is the major bread winner on every production. That is easily seen when I constantly look at the specs for a film on IMDB. It is almost always the Alexa mini or mini LF on newer stuff. 

I don't work in commercial but I have some friends that do and they say it is almost always Alexa. You have a few situations where there is a director who likes RED and they use RED, but it is rare. 

Now I am also coming from the perspective of someone who lives in the USA. Looking at american films and the commercial industry in New York City. I definitely think LA and NYC an obsession with ARRI. 

Detroit where I live there seems to be a liking for RED, especially in the music video space. ARRI is getting it's way into those spaces too. I know a production company here that was all RED. But they now have the Alexa mini LF and they seem to use it for their big stuff. 

Chinese TV is apparently pushing 8k hard so I imagine a most of their stuff will be using the Venice 2. There is Top Gun 2, but they probably would have shot ARRI if they didn't need the Rialto. Obviously it does get a lot of use but not like the Alexa. 

I am really curious to see if more Hollywood features and high end streaming shows will use the LF or the Alexa 35 in 2024. Assuming the strikes will have come to and end.

accidental repost 

19 hours ago, John Matthews said:

Here's the rub as of today in France:

Option 1: G9 ii body for 1899 Euros (I have the lenses)

Option 2: S5 ii body + 20-60 + 50mm prime for only 2099 euros

What would you do?

The G9 makes sense as you have the glass. I'd wait until it drops in price though. The GH6 is so cheap now used and is practically the same camera. It is the same with the S5 ii though, the original S5 goes for under $1000 now used. Essentially paying a grand for auto focus and prores on the S5X. 

7 hours ago, Beritar said:

I've found this interesting video comparing the G9II to some Nikon, Fuji and Sony cameras.
IBIS looks fantastic on the G9II, colors look as great as the GH6 and focus is very fast with the 12-60mm PL.

However, exactly like my GH6 in low light (and my S5II with most PP), I really don't like the details rendering of the G9II.
On the video, the woman has freckles and it's perfect to see the rendering of fine details. What I see is a a mix of smoothing and sharpening resulting in a very bad image (especially when cropping) in my opinion.
The Nikon cameras are even worse. Fine details are totally destroyed, exactly like on my good old Samsung NX1.
I'm glad I never bought Nikon cameras for video.
Sony is Sony, as always, the rolling shutter is bad, the IBIS is average, but the details rendering is much closer than what we had on the first gen S1 and S5, much closer to a raw picture without artifice.

It's always nice to see the IBIS, rolling shutter AF etc compared, but for me one of the most important thing is the pure image quality, including colors and details.
I understand some people like very soft image in video, but to my eyes the G9II (and the Z9/Z8) just doesn't look good, of course YMMV.
 

Do they have sharpening and NR turned off tho? Panasonic usually has some pretty bad processing issues that are fixed in firmware a few months later. That was the case with the S1 and S1H. Both had really bad internal sharpening that couldn't be dialed all the way off. They fixed it a few months later. 

Z-cam is developing a new M43 camera that they claim has a true 16 stops of dynamic range. This is more than what they have listed for their large format camera. I wonder if that sensor will be used in the GH7. 

Internal 444 and high dynamic range would make it an instant buy. I am close to buying the G9 MK2 as it already has everything I want though. 

I think it's a combo of the DSLR craze and new filmmakers coming from that mindset of using 35mm photography cameras. Combined with the only 4k ARRI option being LF. 

All the younger people I know gravitate towards film and more classic cinematography. I think things will trend in that direction more. Though I imagine a large amount of stuff will always be shot LF going forward. 

It is awesome to see ARRI continuing to be adamant on not needing more than 4k and S35. The original Alexa mini still gets a lot of use on higher end stuff. 

For the last couple years really big budget stuff is pretty much dominated by the Alexa LF. It will be interesting to see when and what productions choose the Alexa 35 over it.
 

On 10/14/2023 at 6:56 PM, PannySVHS said:

A polish test site found the HD coming from the S1H to be pixel perfect in S35 mode. I imagine @kye would love the thick 200mbit HD coming from this camera.😊

I had always noticed the HD was subpar coming from the S1H but maybe that is only in full frame mode.

The GH5 HD looked just as good as the 4k. Which is something I have noticed when downsampling 4k to HD, even zooming in its hard to tell a difference. 

I hope S35 becomes the norm again. 

I have noticed that some very soft lenses designed for 35mm stills camera are too soft on M43 but look acceptably sharp on S35 or even better on full frame.

I totally get shooting with a modern lighter setup compared to a full cinema rig. However FX6 vs FX3 is pretty silly. The slightly heavier FX6 is not significant enough to matter. Yet you get things like SDI which are pretty damn important. I bet the AC's hated the FX3's lol. 

What they really saved on is lighting when shooting at 12,800 iso. You can get away with much smaller lighting setups and utilize practicals a lot more. 

I'd not question their decisions to much as they successful made it happen. I did see pictures of 6 cameras A,B,C,D,E,F. I suppose 6 FX6's would be a good deal more to carry around vs the FX3. However I would still think you'd use the FX6 as the A and B cam, and the rest use the smaller setup.

For daytime stuff you'd save a lot of weight and time using the internal ND's over a matte box. It looks like most of the movie was shot at night though. 

Things will change. The FX3 is still a far cry from an Alexa 35, but it isn't that far. A few cameras down the line and the different will be even less noticeable. 

Really their budget savings were in lighting. You can use really small lighting equipment when shooting at 12,800 iso. 

It feels gimmicky to me though. The movie was funded by Sony. Why didn't they use an FX6? Same sensor but you have SDI outputs and a more rig friendly body. Maybe because advertising the movie was shot with the more expensive FX6 won't sell as many camera bodies??

I am sure the FX3 was a nightmare for AC's to deal with.

Perfect camera for vintage glass. You get the full 35mm field of view plus L mount. I am guessing it has the same dynamic range and capabilities as the S1H, which is fantastic, nearing RED Raptor quality. Only downside is the sucky rolling shutter.

It will probably be more like 13 stops max, but will be interesting to see if I am wrong. It doesn't appear to be the GH6 sensor because it is 6k. Very interesting. 

Music videos have the most creative liberty. You can do a lot of funky stuff and it just doesn't matter a lot. 

It is that way for all forum communities. Facebook for instance has groups that are pretty popular and everyone goes there. 

Everything is definitely more watered down now. Facebook groups don't have the type of info this forum does. 

Less people buying cameras now doesn't help either. Not everyone needs DSLR when a phone does such a good job. I also discourage people from buying a ton of gear. From my experience it is just waste of money unless you are a making money on it. Even the people making money are usually spending too way to much on equipment that barely benefits them. It's one thing if gear is your hobby. However I have seen a lot of people that were artists and then become gear heads and lost sight of actually creating. 

22 hours ago, Matt Kieley said:

Here's the shot before I entered frame, so you can get a better look at the window/space:

I think the light just barely allowed me to achieve what I wanted. The room is super cramped so it was challenging, but I'm pleased with this. I think I still have some practice/testing to fully get the hang of exposing for and grading Slog3. Side note: I didn't think I would share any footage so I wish I had dressed a little better before getting on camera.

This looks great man. Honestly if you exposed the subject any brighter I think it would look unnatural.  

On 8/8/2023 at 2:18 AM, Amro Othman said:

 

Love these shots! 😄

thank you sir!

On 8/1/2023 at 1:32 PM, PPNS said:

 

this looks great!

On 7/26/2023 at 3:06 AM, kye said:

I don't think we should extrapolate that to decide what is best for the prosumer market.

If we compare RAW with Prores (especially Prores 4:4:4 which is sadly completely lacking from the prosumer market), then we see that:

• Prores is compressed, but so are most forms of RAW
  RAW has to be de-bayered but RAW is also frequently compressed in a lossy way as the bitrates are almost unmanageable otherwise - this is especially true considering that most implementations of RAW are at the sensors full resolution, or are a brutal crop into the sensor completely revising your whole lens package
• RAW is ALL-I, but so is Prores
• Prores is constant-bitrate per pixel, but so is RAW
• RAW is "professional" quality, but so is Prores

The comparison even extends into licensing, where there's been frequent speculation about licensing fees being a barrier to why manufacturers are reluctant to include Prores, and with RAW the patents are also a barrier.

The more I think about this, the more that I think cameras should just implement the full-range of Prores codecs (LT, 422, HQ, and 444) and forget about RAW with all the BS that seems to go along with it...  the image quality, bit-depths, bit-rates, performance in post, support across platforms, and licensing all seems to be similar to RAW or in the favour of Prores.

I also think the sensor matters a lot more than the codec. The Alexa looks great in Prores 422, but its still reading out at 14 bits and getting most of the dynamic range. 

One of the reasons I prefer prores to RAW is because you can downsample. This saves you data without losing much resolution. Downsampled 2k on the Alexa looks about as good as the full 3.2k resolution, but you use way less space. I have downsampled 6k to 2k on the S1H. The 2k side by side with 6k is almost indistinguishable unless you are really cropping in a lot. Shooting in 6k resolution is super data heavy. The last film I worked on we shot on the URSA 12K in 12k. Crazy data rates. I wish the Ursa 12k had an option to downsample from 12k to 4k prores. 

The in camera 4k RAW on the URSA 12K is noticeably less detailed than the 12k. Down sampled 12k Prores would look insanely sharp. 

Of course you can always shoot in whatever codec and transcode in post, but its just nice to get it in camera, throw it on your computer and it's ready to go. 

Honestly rent both and see what you think. There is a lot more to using a camera than simply looking at a dynamic range chart. I like the out of the box Canon looks more than Sony regardless of dynamic range. Plus there is ergonomics and all that to consider. 

4 minutes ago, SRV1981 said:

Been checking some videos of the r7/8 and other canons lately to see how they fair to Sony and I noticed a lot of blown out highlights.  Is that a flaw of the processor/sensor or users on YT?

The ones that don’t have clog2 kind of suck dynamic range wise. All Sony cams (mostly) have slog3 which can contain all the dynamic range the sensor can put out.

On 7/10/2023 at 7:51 PM, kye said:

Nice!   They definitely look like movie stills and not photographs.

What was the show LUT?  Interesting range of tones/hues there.

Thanks! This was a Kodak 500T lut a DP friend of mine made using Dehancer. 

1 hour ago, MrSMW said:

I have tried a couple of cine lenses but didn’t really get on with them, especially for hybrid use, but if I only shot video, for sure I’d probably be using a set from someone like DZO or even Sigma, but the latter are a bit pricy.

Before I pushed the button on trying this 40+ year old lens, I was considering the DZO 35-80, but the cost size and weight put me off.

It’s 1.5x the weight of the Lumix 70-200mm f4 which I somewhat grudgingly have because I need it, but only use it at 3 specific times on a job.

The thought of using that 35-80 all day long, well just 🤪

The CZ 40-80, around 600g so probably around 700-750g with the adapters and is more compact than my 70-200, a nice balance of heft for stability but not taxing to use all day.

Just been eyeing up the CZ 80-200…but I’m not going to get ahead of myself!

I think maybe they work better for weddings where you are sniping shots. I have to do focus pulls on dollys and such for take after take so more precision is required maybe.