TomTheDP

Yeah a lot of companies have offers like this. Seems like a solid option if you have a good enough credit score to get accepted. Just applied for RED's program for the V-Raptor. Though I think I am going to decide against it. Don't need to spend more money on gear right now.

I like my Shinobi monitors. They have low noise fan settings.

3 hours ago, Tim Sewell said:

Hmmm. My understanding is that a major reason for the almost exclusive use of Arri for serious movie making is the fact that if the camera goes down the Arri network is so good that another will be delivered within hours. I should have thought that kind of protection against downtime would be just as important (if not more) on a low-budget production.

I mean you could just buy 10 DSLR's and have them on stand by and spend way less.

1 hour ago, Kino said:

It seems that he added the NR on the Z9 N-RAW 8K in post using Resolve, but it does not include downsampling. With downsampling to 4K, you should be able to get another .5 stop. So, if you take out the NR but downsample to 4K, you should be back at around 12.5 usable stops.

As for why Nikon did not advertise the 14 bit NEV files, I'm not entirely sure, but I plan to find out . . .

I would definitely be considering it if it is a 14 bit readout. That would be very unique. 12.5 stops with the texture of 8k raw would be very nice.

Still a heck of a lot pricier than my Sigma FP, but for a good reason.

5 hours ago, IronFilm said:

bummer, I was hoping for a FX6 with a FX30 sensor in it 

Yeah that would be sweet, at a lower price point. Never going to happen though.

26 minutes ago, SRV1981 said:

What about when you’re comparing DR, color, log profiles?

DR is pretty simple. Check CineD or Gerald Undone. Most cameras have dynamic range results between those two sources. For Color I usually rely on a lot of different sources from youtube, forums(including this one), people I know, colorists opinions, and just my own perception from reviewing footage.

I think the FX30 is kind of ignored on here because it is a boring camera. It doesn't push past any boundaries. It was also very late incoming. An APSC Sony camera that could do 10 bit and 4k 120p was rumored for a long time. The XH2S has much more interesting capabilities and specs.

That said the Sony FX30 is very capable and does what it does well. I personally think the IQ looks and feels better than the FX3. It just isn't a super exciting release.

 

3 hours ago, Kino said:

 

This chart mentions NR. Is it just talking about the NR that comes from downsampling 8k to 4k? or is it adding noise reduction in davinci or other program.?

If it is adding NR in post that means the actual dynamic range is about 12 stops. The Panasonic S1 has more without NR. 12 stops still isn't bad.

The 8k Sony venice gets 12.8 stops when downsampling 8k to 4k in post. The RED raptor is getting 12.5 stops. So 12 isn't bad.

The stills you posted do look fantastic though. Would be awesome if it was a 14 bit readout, though it seems like they would advertise that.

 

If it is 14 bit it should be identical to 14 bit RAW photos. Does the RAW video and photos have the same dynamic range? 12.5 stops with noise reduction isn't the greatest.

4 hours ago, IronFilm said:

MANY things!

Timecode. 

SDI outputs.

Reliability. 

Internal NDs. 

More recording options. 

etc etc etc etc

But for many people these extra factors don't matter to them. 

However, for many professionals these would be deal breakers for these to be missing. 

The C70 doesn't have SDI unfortunately.

 

3 hours ago, IronFilm said:

Got any tips and advice? 

 

Hollywood can make a movie that appeals to a wide general audience without hitting as much of a niche. If you don't have a huge marketing budget you aren't going to be able  to do that. You have to find a niche. It is really that simple. I guess that is the same story for any small business.

For me it has been Detroit films on the streaming service Tubi. Only working as a cinematographer but I am about to direct/produce one and see some of the back end. Will be interesting.

1 hour ago, fuzzynormal said:

You can't tell me that most of us here have the technical skill to make an Academy Award Winning film like Nomadland.  It's brain-dead simple if you have an inkling of video production craft.

Storytelling maybe not so much, but that film could've been shot on a 5DII and no one would care or notice.

To me winning at an Oscar is more politics than talent. Sure your film won't get nominated if it is crap but it also won't get nominated just because it is really good.

The people that care on a $5 mil budget indie like Nomadland are the producers, director, and DP. None of which want to be seen working with anything besides a camera that costs over 30k

I work on mostly low budget feature films in the 30k realm. They can actually be incredibly profitable if you know what you are doing.

12 hours ago, billdoubleu said:

Perhaps it mostly still comes down to cost and reliability? Mainly in regards to storage media. Cameras are only very recently able to take advantage of low(ish) cost SSDs that are fast and of large capacity. In the recent past storage media was slow, low capacity, and expensive; or slow, high capacity, and really expensive. Couple that with the variance in card speed and card compatibility with different cameras, even with the same card brand. It's difficult to ensure a quality customer experience with these issues.

Also, you're an experienced DP, you may be more willing to work with difficult equipment (like a hacked Canon) to aquire a better image. I would venture to say that the majority of these cameras end up in the hands of jackoffs like me who participate in this as a hobby and don't have the inclination to dick around with a finicky camera.

RED caught a lot of shit for charging astronomical prices for their branded SSDs but it makes sense if you are quality assuring reliability and compatibility. I'm not sure how ARRI handles this aspect of their cameras but I'm sure it's much of the same. Limit the customer to what you're sure will work even though the cost is high. In these two cases you can do that, but with a consumer camera you will probably account for the lowest common denominator and accommodate accordingly. Democracy at it's finest.

That is true. The sigma FP is limited by write speed to some degree.

I am willing to deal with something finicky, but it is project dependent. I appreciate the simplicity of Prores over anything else as it makes post very very simple. I am considering using the Sigma FP for an upcoming feature, but I know I will have complete control over the post production process.

I think RED caught a lot of flack because after that one individual opened up their SSD's they were found to be SSD's not specially made for RED. I think the mark up for there SSD's was like 8x what it would otherwise cost.

I personally don't mind proprietary products. For example, the Alexa mini can only use ARRI branded CFAST cards. The LF and XT only use specific Alexa SSD's, which are very costly. From what I have seen RED has just not been the most honest and I really think if they were more truthful they'd actually have a better reputation.
 

7 hours ago, fuzzynormal said:

Years and years ago I literally used a counterweight'ed lead pipe to do some stuff that I wanted to look smooth'ish, but still very much handheld.  The rig weighed about 10 lbs when done.  Not the type of thing you want to run around with ALL day, but for short stretches it was perfect for the look I wanted.

Something like this: 

Did this like 10 years ago, actually worked well for the Sony camcorder I was using at the time. The good old days before I had to spend 20k on gear every year lol

2 hours ago, newfoundmass said:

I've found Panasonic's colors SOOC to be very good since the S5. I used to really love Canon's color science, but I've come to dislike how unnatural they can be. These days I prefer accurate colors more than anything. I'll be labeled a fanboy, but I prefer Panny colors to Canon at this point because I know that when I take a picture (or video) the colors are going to look closer to what I saw with my eyes than what Canon will give me. Everyone is really catching up to Canon, and in some ways surpassing them. Even Sony, which is still my least favorite, has improved dramatically.

I kind of still like the old Canon color look. Not accurate but super nice. After comparing the C70, P4K, and Panasonic S1 I definitely like the C70 clog3 with the manufacturer lut applied the best.

It is all personal preference at some point.

28mm should be decent on the 6k sensor. You go super wide and you really start to lose a lot of depth, but its scene/location dependent obviously.

My suggestion would be to add as much weight as you can. If you can get the rig close to 5 pounds it will make your movement so much nicer.

An Easyrig for me doesn't really help to stabilize. Just saves your arms a bit for longer takes. If anything sometimes the easyrig makes stuff less stable, when people let the camera get away from their center of gravity.

27 minutes ago, PPNS said:

- i think its hard for me to believe that the software hack gives you superior image quality to anything now

- its hard for me to believe that the 14 bit readout would give you any discernible difference compared to the 12 bit readout

It gives you 14 bit color which is a lot more color information than 12 bit. It just depends on what part of IQ is important to you. Past 2k isn't important to me, dynamic range is important, but color is the most important. Dynamic range on cameras like the Lumix S1 have been good enough for me. About a stop and a half behind an Alexa but good enough. Another example, the Lumix S1 can do 12 bit raw/10 bit log and has more dynamic range/higher resolution than the 10 year old RED scarlet. However I found the color overall out of the old Scarlet looked much richer with nicer skintones. The colorist on that project told me that as well. I am sure this is partially color science. The Scarlet sensor is quite old though and was never known to have the best color science. I do attribute a lot of it to 16 bit depth.

Its not as much side by side comparisons but having shot and colored features on low end cameras like Blackmagic, Z-cam, Panasonic, Fuji and than doing the same with ARRI or RED the difference is very noticeable. Obviously this isn't a scientific observation.

RED and ARRI are high end cinema cameras. So it may just be that they have much more pleasing color science and that's it. But I have also observed still images coming out of these hybrid cameras that always look superior to the video they capture. 14 bit vs 12-10 bit readout.

I'd have to find the thread but it was a gent on here who shot some material with the BM 4K, C70, and his old 5D MK3. He was expecting the newer cameras to replace his old Canon but was left quite disappointed.

8 hours ago, FHDcrew said:

Some more footage I shot with the Z6 in oversampled 1080p

Looks good though I think if it was rendered as 4k it would look better on YouTube.

39 minutes ago, billdoubleu said:

I suspect it's more a matter of why would a large Japanese manufacturer provide such a feature. There doesn't seem to be much incentive to include high bit depth RAW in the compact mirrorless market. It seems people are demanding that bodies get smaller, more lightweight, and provide higher resolution (I know the last one is debatable). Smaller bodies introduce heat management and battery life issues. Higher resolution introduces more data to process and store. Miniaturization costs money.

The manufacturer also has to consider the goal of the end user. The people on this forum are regular guys and gals busting their asses day to day competing in a thankless market where there is always someone who will do the job cheaper and faster. I think most want to get as much done in-camera as possible and get it out the door. Not every project should involve processing and coloring footage. Most one man bands or small production teams just don't have the time or resources for that.

In one of Andrew's latest front page articles he is proving that codecs are getting really good and flexible and the data rates are far more manageable than RAW. Ten years ago codecs were either shit at low data rates or on the flip side you needed a beefy computer to handle the high data rate codecs.

From what I understand, and I could be wrong, the majority of productions using a cinema camera like an ARRI don't use a RAW workflow, aside from scenes with a challenging lighting situation. The data collection and management is too much for all but the biggest budgets. And any niche cases are being handled by the likes of Blackmagic with their sort-of-RAW or that other company we all know who owns the compressed RAW market (which in and of itself is enough reason for manufacturers to not want to deal with it).

So basically I don't think enough people give a shit about 14 but RAW for it to be a readily available option. If there is one thing I took away from my economics courses is that incentive is everything.

I agree most things in life come down to money. I do question the why though.

The Alexa processes in 14 bit for prores as well, not really any difference between Prores XQ and RAW. RAW is a gimmick to me. The whole benefit of REDraw is not that its RAW but that it is capturing 16 bits of color depth. Throw any 10 bit log with a decent data rate thru the correct image pipeline and it will look just as good as the 12 bit raw from these cameras because the readout is no different. Sometimes the RAW looks worse due to less processing and more color noise.

The RAW gimmick has worked for RED for the past 12 years, who thrive in the owner operator market. Same with Blackmagic which have always touted their RAW recording capabilities, even if BRAW is really just 12 bit log. The new RED Raptor having 444 XQ is actually a huge selling point for me, as to me RAW is just a hassle.

All the companies are pushing for RAW. Apple prores RAW, Nikon even if putting RAW video in their cameras as a selling point and apparently it's worth the hassle of lawsuits with RED. Almost all cameras now record RAW to external recorders if not internal. It is a huge part of the entire Atomos brand, RAW recorders.

10 bit log recording is now a standard in pretty much every camera even Go Pros, even a lot of phones have it now. In a world where cell phones are the go to device, I think every feature is important as you need something to make it worth while lugging a camera around that doesn't fit in your pocket.

Anyways my thought is that there is a push for better IQ on all fronts; resolution but also, dynamic range, and color depth. However no one has caught up to an 11 year old hacked Canon DSLR. To me bit depth is the major thing lacking IQ wise in non cinema cameras. Dynamic range is about good enough as is resolution. Give me 14 bit rather it be RAW or prores or whatever codec you want to package it in. Hopefully not CDNG but hey I'll take that too.
 

3 hours ago, PPNS said:

its pixel binned since that sensor isnt natively 3.5k, so you should actually be missing quite a lot of info right?

My Sigma FP does a similar thing not sure if its pixel binning or line skipping or if there is a difference between the two. It is 4k rather than 3.5k but not far off. Similar camera, 11 years newer, but only 12 bit readout.

The Sigma FP post workflow isn't the greatest but at least CDNG can be immediately put into resolve. But yeah not 14 bit and definitely lacking when comparing to a RED or Alexa, including a 10 year old RED or Alexa.

@mercerowns both the FP and 5D MK3 and I believe he has said the lower bit depth on the Sigma is noticeable. I have heard that from others too.

I have been thinking about this a lot. Why can't current cameras do 14 bit 4k raw?

The 5d MK3 featured a processor capable of 14 bit RAW at 3.5k, that was 11 years ago. I guess color depth isn't marketable? Although 10 bit seemed to be and still seems to be a huge selling point.

All these years later and no cameras have this feature outside of cinema cameras which have been doing this since 2010. To me that is what is missing in the lower end cameras. I have been tempted to get an old 5d MK3 and run magic lantern on it as a B-cam to my Alexa. Obviously there is a dynamic range difference but the color information is there. The workflow and ergonomics simply aren't good enough for me to use the camera on professional projects.

 

1 hour ago, j_one said:

I'm not attached to the S5ii just yet. I view it as a proof of concept of what Panny has in store for the other models' refresh. I needed a mirrorless that can do all the things my Ursa can't: PDAF for gimbal and long focal length interview shots, stills for occasional studio shoots, smaller form factor when situation calls for it etc. IBIS is a plus but not a big factor.

I'm mostly a happy camper because the camera is stellar. The trouble for me is that while I love V-log for video, I'm just not married to Panny's color for stills in comparison to Canikon, shoot me. Perhaps I need more practice? S5ii stills are alright I guess. But having owned 5D3, 5D4, D810 and coming to Panny I do miss those colors, and the S1R samples I've seen haven't won me over either. I almost went the R6ii route, but I favor V-log DR over Clog3.

I'm wondering if its wise to just split these needs into two bodies vs fight to find the right hybrid body under $3k. One high MP DSLR used, one S1H (or future S2H with PDAF?) and adapt the lenses to it..

Or submit to Canon with an R7/R5/R5C and call it a day.

I don't like overthinking this stuff. I claim the purchase to be a good business decision, so I shouldn't let my subjective feels about the stills make me ungrateful for what is a really great camera right? There's always going to be compromises.

Yeah I am happier shooting Canon, Fuji or Nikon for stills. Why bother using a system you don't like unless its absolutely necessary to do so.

I think two bodies isn't a terrible idea if you can use EF lenses on the pana body with no problem. To me for stills an EOS R would do just fine. Even a Canon DSLR, 5D or 6d, have a great look out of camera, though they are lacking in lowlight against the newer options.

2 hours ago, Kisaha said:

The Panasonic 20-60mm is a great cheap kit lens, maybe best in business right now (in very cheap kit lenses!).

The XF 16-120mm f4 almost made me go Fuji recently..

I use the 18-135mm EF-S in my R7 that I used to use on C100 cameras for run and gun situations, it is convenient with vND adapter..

The CN-E 18-80mm is interesting..

My workhorse in NX was the 16-50mm 2-2.8f..

Now that I decided going RF (still debating if that was the right move..) I want something like the NX lens, but 4f would be enough for me for run and gun..I value weight and size more now that I am not 28years old (I am not even 29 anymore!), Because the long end is "cheap", I would LOVE an 15-70, let's say, PZ maybe, 4f. That would be good for shitters too, ehm..I mean KreAtorZ! So they can market it alright for most people..

 

Canon is X1.6 crop..loosing something even in the conversion..why Canon?!!!

X1.5 is cheaper and more convenient than gaining 1 mm at the wide end of a lens!!!

 

I might have to consider the 20-60mm for the Sigma FP. Been using the Alexa mostly which is only EF mount or PL mount. The CN-E 18-80mm looks good for a cinema lens but 4.4 is a bit slow for S35. Really need a f3 or 2.8

6 hours ago, FoxAdriano said:

Hi, I always use V-Log with my GH6 to make 4K videos. I like to use V-Log for the large dynamic range. But I would like to get video with slightly more contrasted colors by changing the Menu in the GH6. It's possible? Thanks for some info.

You can turn on lut monitoring to see more what the final image will look like after color grading.
 

HLG is an option to give you a more contrasty look while still preserving most of the details. 

11 hours ago, MrSMW said:

I think the problem is that the 24-105 has always been considered (by manufacturer’s, more a ‘kit’ lens than a ‘pro’ lens.

Like many, I prefer lenses to be as small and light as possible (which is why I love the Sigma Contemporary line of primes and compact zooms and for me are the sweet spot of lens in all regards) and I do like my Lumix 24-105 in terms of the quality of image that it puts out, but it’s back up and/or my all weather lens.

The reality is, for my use, f4 is just too slow for around 30% of my use case.

If Sigma or Lumix was to produce something like the Tamron 35-150, even with a constant f2.8 aperture, I’d be all over it.

Even something ending at around 120mm would be fab.

I’d even be extremely happy if a ‘pro’ 24/28-105mm f2.8 with internal or very short zooming came out though the compromise would be size & weight, it would be a compromise I could live with.

The reality of the Tamron 35-150 is that it is what I would call a ‘compromise lens’ (they all are to one degree or another) and for me would require a battery grip or the handling on even a short shoot would be awful, never mind a 15 hour gig.

Going a bit off topic here, but hey ho… 🤪

For me shooting narrative projects a solid 20-85 cinema lens would be amazing. 20 is just wide enough to cover most wide angle needs on S35 and 85 is long enough to cover most shots on that end.