TomTheDP

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. 

1 hour ago, Caleb Genheimer said:

What? How is that an issue? Every hybrid runs the sensor at 12-bit linear. You have to get into Canon DGO, ALEV, or a real cine cam to get anything better.

I am not saying it's an issue, just a reality. 12 bit linear RAW gives a similar amount of information as 10 bit log. This is why I assume people aren't seeing a difference when shooting linear 12 bit over the internal 10 bit on the S1H. Bitrate could still be an issue as 150-200mbps these H265/H264 codecs are doing isn't a lot of data to work with. 

 The Fuji XH2s does 14 bit ADC when shooting 4k up to 30fps. I am not quite sure on Blackmagic cameras. The URSA 4.6K had a similar dual gain sensor as the Alexa but I don't know if the color depth was the same. 

Atomos claims this about their recorders with the A7S3/FX3
"The Ninja V captures tremendous detail with 12-bit log files with over 68 billion color graduations! This is converted from the camera’s 16-bit linear RAW output. This process has the advantage of being visually indistinguishable from 16-bit Linear recording, while still having practical data rates."

Obviously the good old 5D MK3 does 14 bit with magic lantern, if that counts. 

ARRI does this with their cameras, they package 14 bit into a 12 bit log as there is really no benefit to 14 bit linear over 12 bit log, at least according to them. 

1 hour ago, Caleb Genheimer said:

I’ve found this to be true (as many likely have,) by having and then ditching a Blackmagic camera. I had a GH5S, which was 10-bit, and quite good, but the P4K seemed definitely better. Then as I used the raw, I learned more about how to properly utilize ACES and color manage my workflow. When I applied that kind of workflow to the GH5S, the differences lessened to one of dynamic range more than anything else, so when the S1H was out and tested with market leading dynamic range and full V-Log, I sold both of the other cameras, and never looked back. 
 

The S1H V-Log is a thicker neg than the P4K has, even if the P4K is “raw,” and the S1H is not. It’s also why I’ve avoided external “raw” recorders for the S1H, it’s borderline snake oil, you don’t get any benefit from it. The color fidelity of 10-bit wrapped 12-bit is plenty if the codec and bitrate are healthy. The only reason I want to see sensors start running at higher than 12-bit (or DGO implementation) is for the bump in DR. 
 

Low level noise as looked at here is really where the truth resides. I can look at my S1H footage in this way, and there’s definitely some NR going on to wrangle the shadow detail, but the end result is also pleasing, so I’ll take it. Clean organic shadow detail like people long for will always be the territory of ALEV level sensors, and the prosumer cams will always be using a few little tricks to go that “last mile” to a cinematic image. But if they’re good at the tricks, is the minor difference worth the major difference in price? For most, probably not. 
 

As always, EOSHD peels back the layers of chaff to take a close look at what’s really going on under the hood of these cameras.

Thanks Andrew!

I think one of the issues is the S1H I believe only does 12 bit linear out. This really shouldn't give much benefit over 10 bit log. If it was 14-16 bit RAW you'd probably notice more of a difference. 

I think an advantage of RAW is if you are using different cameras on one project and or using Final cut or Premiere which don't really have ACES options. 

Very odd. I'd definitely be interested in how the Sigma FP-L in 12 bit compares to the Sony. 

5 minutes ago, Django said:

Actually according to CineD, S1 has about 12 stops and C70 is closer to 13. Also according to them, S1 uses aggressive NR (even when set to -5) to achieve such results. While C70 has virtually no NR with that score. Something extra to consider when comparing metrics.

Also, the nice thing about how the DGO sensor works on C70 is very clean shadow information. So low shadow noise, high DR with pleasant roll-off. That's a dream type of sensor for me personally. I'll also take that over dual gain ISO any day.

The S1H lost that aggressive NR in later firmware, the GH5 had similar issue at first. The S1 never had the aggressive NR though, probably one of the better cameras in terms of an organic NR free image, it was rated at 12.2 stops. The C70 in RAW is 12.3 stops, which is very close to what the S1 is doing.

 Of course the S1 may have less dynamic range in RAW due to the likely less processing going on. But from using both cameras on projects the S1 seems to hold highlights better while the while the C70 is better in shadows. But I know people have noticed the C70 in 10 bit is doing a lot of processing, which is why I assume the dynamic range in RAW is less. 

57 minutes ago, Django said:

Not that easy. The Alexa ALEV sensor still holds a lot of secrets. I think Canon are the ones getting close with the DGO sensor inside C70.

 

BM have great CS resources via DaVinci RS. But even they keep trying to improve their CS, now at Gen5.

Ok, I think you meant to quote @ade towell I never spoke on that particular comparison.

yeah meant to quote abe. 

In terms of the the DGO sensors it is cool to see. Apparently the URSA mini 4.6k was DGO as well. 

The only thing is the C70 and also the GH6 don't seem to have more dynamic range than say the S1's non DGO full frame sensor. I am curious to see if we'll get a full frame DGO sensor from someone. I kind of prefer single ISO sensors to dual for whatever reason. 

12 minutes ago, Django said:

Huh? How so? Complimenting Panny IQ doesn't mean speaking bad on Canon.

I never liked using S35 4K mode on the S1 as it always looked softer and noisier, especially above 800 iso. It is just surprising the Canon in FF 4k mode looks worse. 

16 minutes ago, Django said:

That is a possibility but matching footage from different brands is something I'd rather avoid, even though using EF glass on both platforms should make things bit more consistent. (however color science and overall image processing would still differ).

Yeah I mean the S5ii footage hyalinejim provided also convinces me that the 4K footage looks indeed super clean, with a very pleasing organic look. Even though it's only shot with Tamron zoom. Pretty impressive. 

I would of course be curious to see footage with same EF-L glass shot on R6 vs S5ii for a more definitive comparison.

Man that speaks really badly for the Canon. 

Just to contribute to this resurrected thread, here is my Alexa Classic on a music video recently. Heavy but beautiful image. 

6 minutes ago, John Matthews said:

It's only because we're camera nerds that we care. Recently, I've noticed so many Hollywood films with blatent focusing mistakes.

Especially older films when it was all film. It is definitely less common these days but I have seen it, I think there was an out of focus shot that was very noticeable in the last Thor film. With super shallow DOF tracking long takes some soft focus is definitely common. 

I suppose its a little more critical for short form social media stuff as every shot is more apparent. Or maybe it matters less as such content is usually so short lived. 

7 minutes ago, Django said:

I did actually try CST with those settings but to be honest was not enchanted by those results. It's all very subjective of course, and I'm not necessarily looking for complete accuracy when grading, although its probably a good place to start so I'll test that further. 

I think Sony was voted most accurate color science in recent cross-platform tests. Yet in reality they are ironically often the most disliked! Reality isn't always that pretty 😉 

Most people like Sony these days though. But another thing is mixed lighting conditions, which is where a lot of cameras struggle. I think one thing higher end cameras are known for at least in the cinema realm is maintaining pleasing skin tones while also maintaining color accuracy. 

Film stocks definitely give a pretty stylized look though and everyone is using film conversion luts these days. 

10 minutes ago, HockeyFan12 said:

I don't think it's intentional.

Even the P4K and P6K and Venice and A7S3III don't match perfectly. 

Must have something to do with the slightly different sensor variations and probably just lack of budget to really do things like make a custom lut for each model.

10 minutes ago, Django said:

Well color science also evolves generation after generation, but the same old LUTs often remain. 

Saturated reds is something Leica is famous for so I wonder if this is their influence. It seems like their CS is closer than ever to Panasonics now with L2 image processing.

Why would they not release a new lut after intentionally changing the color science though.

It's very interesting how color differs from the lower end to higher end cameras. Even from S1 to EVA1 to Varicam. Is this carelessness or further market segmentation. 

21 hours ago, Michael S said:

When people say you must overexpose vlog by 2 stops, they mean the exposure meter must say +2. The reason for this is that the exposure meter assumes a standard gamma curve and not a log curve. As mid gray on a log curve sits two stops above mid gray compared to a normal gamma curve, the exposure meter must say +2. In my opinion this is a user interface design error from Panasonic which only leads to confusion. So the proper answer is that you must expose correctly, and therefore ignore the exposure meter when shooting in vlog. Use the spot meter (which switches to EI in vlog) or waveform. Spot meter must say +0 EI and mid gray on the waveform sits on 42%.

Very interesting. Very bizarre mistake by Panasonic if that is the case with the S1.