TomTheDP

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.

3 hours ago, fuzzynormal said:

It's intentional for me as well as I'm most often doing docs or corporate personality profiles. 

So, rationalizing it as bringing the viewer intimately into their world.  As you mention, using that bit of focal compression as a way of isolating the person unto themselves.

OTOH, my wife and I did a narrative short last year and we ended up using 18mm on M43 mostly.  So, 36mm FF equiv.  Felt like the right choice as the main characters were a couple.

To the topic's OP: as you see, none of these decisions are reliant on specific camera brand purchases.

I guess longer lenses feel less intimate to me. As an extreme example lets say being on 16mm for a close up feels to me like you are actually right next to the person vs say being on a 85mm. Though I would agree that longer lenses generally look more pleasing. All personal preference at the end of the day of course.

12 hours ago, fuzzynormal said:

I like to use longer focal lengths.  Not necessarily tight shots.  A person filmed head to toe with a longer lens just looks better, imo.

I tend to find myself on 35mm most of the time, which I consider right in the middle. I feel it gives me enough depth without too much compression giving that almost voyeuristic look. I do like super wides occasionally even for close ups, though it can be too jarring.

I don't use super long lenses that much. I think its nice to get a POV look, like a perspective shot looking at something from afar. I did that a few times with my last project on a 120mm. Another use is trying to make a character feel more isolated. I mostly shoot narrative projects though so I guess lens choice becomes a lot more intentional.

probably best thing to do is rent a few different systems for different projects and see what you like using the best. If you work someone in the video field most of the advantage of a certain system is just practical usability for whatever it is you shoot.

4 hours ago, FHDcrew said:

This is true. If you have the control anything made in the last 10 years can look great, especially if you only have online delivery. Throw away that control over lighting and all of the sudden things like dynamic range and highlight rolloff become immensely important 

I mean at the same time a lot of these new cameras do handle natural light pretty well, especially the full frame sensors. I think the big differentiator is still the lack of 14 bit readout on most cameras. Dynamic range is pretty respectable but we are still only getting a 10-12 bit readout. I'd love to play with 5D MK3 raw footage. I imagine its lacking in dynamic range but has a certain mojo due to the 14 bit readout.

What I found with the S1 sensor is the dynamic range was good enough for most scenarios, even some pretty difficult ones. I find after using lower end cameras for many projects from production to post, and now using an Alexa from production to post, you can tell the difference. If you are just comparing single frames maybe not as much, but overall the Alexa sensor and color science is just easier to work with and looks better when pushed really hard.

If I wanted to be smart I'd get a RED Raven or Komodo for quick projects. You still get that great IQ, albeit not an Alexa, but in a much smaller and less power hungry package. That would be run and gun enough for me.

1 hour ago, Eric Calabros said:

You make it look more complicated than what its. Z9 sensor is noisier than A1 sensor, and using 12bit ADC to read out a noisy sensor doesn't give the best image quality. Nikon use the same raw codec for high efficiency raw still images, and photographers have no problem with that. BTW, raw recording benefit is not just correcting huge exposure mistakes in post. First, log profiled compressed images gonna suffer from banding. Its inevitable. Second, raw preserves the bayer pattern, so there will be freedom to use state of the art demosaicing algorithms in future, which are getting better and better with AI. Third, who doesn't hate baked-in white balance? 

I assume the stills are 14 bit which makes a big difference, at least from my experience comparing stills to video RAW on most cameras. 

But like you said it could be as simple as just an inferior sensor. I would say the A1 is likely doing NR but it sounds like the underexposed areas look very organic. 

1 hour ago, HockeyFan12 said:

You had a P6K at some point, right? How did you like that compared with the S1, fp, Alexa, etc. I'm looking for a smaller camera/Alexa b camera and Black Magic has really consistent color camera-to-camera it seems so it would be easier for my workflow than the S1 and S1Alex (which works, just not as flexible as shooting braw and using ACES would be for me).

I have not owned the Pocket 6k but have shot with the Pocket 4k and the Alexa side by side. The Pocket 6k is a great camera. I guess I have never been a huge Blackmagic fan. I like the images from their OG cameras however they are just funky to use.

 The new pocket cams just feel cheap compared to Panasonic gear. It is really just my personal bias. Blackmagic is definitely the easiest option for cinema features and codecs for a really cheap price. 

I do like the low light capabilities of the S1 line and the extra dynamic range is also nice to have. I think using color space transform to ACES is a great way to gain better control of WB without having to shoot in RAW. I am not sure how that workflow affects the color accuracy of LUTS, such as the Emotive color Alexa luts. 

The biggest benefit of shooting RAW to me is the ability to fine tune white balance. It is a critical feature when trying to match cameras. With the S1 emotive color got the contrast and roll off really nice but the WB threw off the color when shooting side by side with an actual ARRI ALEXA. An Aces workflow might be a way around that though. 

I think for now I shall stick to the Sigma. It is a great camera, it just requires transcoding for certain NLE's, which isn't the end of the world. 

 

The GH6 still stands out to me as its internal 4k or 6k 60p looks better than the full frame 4k 35 crop on the S1/S5/S1H. 

I recently sold my S1 to get a Sigma FP. The S5iiX might bring me back to Panasonic. I have always been impressed with the dynamic range on the S1 sensor and with a nice internal codec it would be hard to turn down. 

The GH6 also has 4k 120fps which the S1 sensor can't hold a candle to. The thing is I rarely shoot above 24fps and I think the S5/S1 Sensor in full frame 4k/6k 24 has more dynamic range. The GH6 is cheaper though. 

I am also interested if there will be a S1H2 with a new sensor that has a faster readout for 4k 120fps. 

19 hours ago, FHDcrew said:

Appreciate it!  Anything you would recommend regarding improvements?

I don't know man I think it looks great. Looks very organic and the colors look vibrant. I think it is a winning combination. 

Looks really good @FHDcrew

On 2/12/2023 at 9:45 AM, androidlad said:

14bit readout on X-H2s absolutely does not offer any tangible benefits. The sensor design cannot take adavantage of higher bit-depth readout as the extra bits are really only there to quantise noise.

 

The 14 bit ADC mode seems to increase dynamic range over the 12 bit ADC. The entire patch range went up to 15 stops. 

12 hours ago, Caleb Genheimer said:

Yep sounds like we’re on the same page. Not 100% on the Pocket cams, but if they’re 14-bit, they’re doing something wrong, because it performs just like 12-bit (pretty sure that’s what it is though). 
 

The XH2s is indeed one of the outliers. Hopefully that means 14-bit is coming to full frame soon. It makes sense Fuji would do it in their S35 cam, as the have a FF “gap” in their lineup (APSC straight to Medium Format). 

Yes definitely. With Blackmagic I believe the Fairchild sensors were dual gain but not the newer pockets or the Ursa 12k. 

So much goes into cameras its hard to determine what is actually advantageous. Recently I used both the Sigma FP and ARRI Alexa Classic on a feature film. It was a good opportunity to put both cameras through their paces in a variety of scenarios. During production I began to question my decision to use the Alexa classic due to its size. However now that I just finished coloring the film I can say the Alexa was so much easier to work with in post. It just looks nice without any work needing to be done. It is also so easy to adjust. We only shot in prores 422 sometimes at 1600 iso for low light scenes. It still looks amazing. 

I worked on a short film where we shot on the Z-cam S6 in 4k prores 422 and Panasonic S1 in the 10 bit 4k codec.  We came back to reshoot a scene and used the Alexa. Again the Alexa felt so effortless in post. I am sure my post workflow for the Panasonic could be better. But I can't argue with my eyes. Probably not a fair to compare a once 80,000 Hollywood camera to a prosumer $2000 camera though. 

Even when shooting in 422 it's still doing a 14 bit readout. But I think the color science and processing is almost just as important. I know that with the right post workflows most cameras can look identical these days when shooting 10 bit log or RAW. But the simplicity of cinema cameras has really drawn me away from prosumer gear, seeing as you can get a lot of older RED's and Alexas for reasonable ish prices these days.