TomTheDP

We've seen Canon intentionally gimp their own cameras, putting in inferior hardware that would cause overheating. I personally doubt it is an issue of can't. Of course we now have the XH2S, with a sony sensor(maybe?) that is doing a 14 bit readout. The shadow retention on that camera is quite impressive especially for a S35 sensor, which I assume has a lot to do with the 14 bit readout. Performance was gimped by fuji's weird Xtrans filter and bad processing.

 Most things come down to money but I also see a lot of incompetency with these camera companies, which is also probably stemming from a lack of budget in R&D. The camera market is pretty dead. In terms of marketing I don't know, I don't work for these companies. I am just making guesses.

I have used lower end cameras for a long time. Recently in 2022 and this year I have had the chance to shoot on RED and ARRI for several feature film projects. I was of the opinion that it is a waste of money and time to shoot with these cameras for the most part. I don't hold that opinion anymore. At the end of several of my projects last year I was questioning the merit of using a heavier, older cinema camera vs something much lighter and quicker to use. Once I started coloring the projects I changed my mind. The EPIC Dragon and Alexa EV are both pretty old tech as well. I am excited to possibly shoot with the RED monstro or LF soon.

Am I focusing on things that don't matter? Maybe? I am not a director, the story is not my realm. My job is the image which is achieved through the camera and lighting. Everything in my line of work is arbitrary to some degree. It is art. It's choosing between using a frost or white diffusion. Does the audience care? What is too much and what is too little? I don't know. Small things that add up. It's an obsessive job but that is part of the fun, at least to me.

Anyways I am hopeful to see something with 14 bit readout on the market soon that is in the affordable range. Rooting for Panasonic. 






 

I guess you are mixing output format with processing format.
From https://www.arri.com/en/learn-help/arri-camera-technology/best-overall-image-quality
 

The Alexa does a 14 bit readout. RED does 16 bit. The Alexa uses 12 bit log both in RAW and ProRes. RED uses 16 bit linear. If you look up the difference between linear and log you’ll get it. 
All RED cameras, ARRI, and Sony Venice do either 14 bit or 16 bit readout. 
 
All prosumer cameras like the S1, Sony FX cameras, Canon’s entire lineup do either a 12 bit readout or 10 bit readout. This is why these cameras 12 bit raw performs poorly compared to ARRIs 10 bit, as even when recording 422, ARRI is doing a 14 bit readout. Of course the unique ARRI sensor and color science/processing makes a big difference too. 
 
As someone who’s job it is to give the best picture possible I have shot engaging projects with the S1 and in post have been disappointed in the image. This is what I am saying. I have used a wide variety of cameras on narrative shorts and features. I avoid shooting with low end options unless it’s forced by the budget. It just makes my job harder. 
 
The Komodo is great but it is a cheap sensor being used. If you like side by side tests I’ve done them, Komodo vs Alexa. The Komodo’s lack of dynamic range is apparent and the color science/skin tones are noticeably different. This is when shooting with natural light. The Komodo simply can’t hold onto the highlights. 
 
Blind tests are great for YouTube content but they don’t offer much practical info for using a camera on production. 
 
I do think there is a practical limitation on what is good enough. ARRI is that limitation.  14 bit readout into a 12 bit log, 4k resolution, and about 14 stops of dynamic range. The Alexa 35 goes to 17 stops of dynamic range, a bit overkill but I can see how it would be helpful sometimes. They stuck with 4k resolution and a 14 bit readout. That seems to give you what you’d need in post production. Which has definitely been my practical experience. 
 
I am specifically talking narrative use on production. If one is just shooting their own content it definitely doesn’t matter much. I definitely don’t recommend everyone go pick up an ARRI or RED camera. But for people who do what I do, I usually would. This industry is very niche though and I’m in my own little small niche within it. 

1080p raw video with 12ish stops of DR is hardly an obsession in IQ.
Isn't the goal to get more DR, more bitrate, more color information? I, believe, @TomTheDP 's point in this post is that a group of part time coders were able to unlock, and write, a fairly stable firmware which opened a zeitgeist of cinema settings and 14bit raw video on a prosumer camera, so surely official firmware from one of the manufacturers could easily match their efforts from 11 years ago
12bit video can display up to 68 billion shades of color, 14bit can display up to 4 trillion. Surely, those numbers will be closer when the image goes through the pipeline to an eventual rec709 delivery, but to say it will have zero effect on the final image just isn't true.
If it doesn't matter to you... cool! It doesn't mean it isn't important to someone else.
That said, I agree that story is king. But as you suggested, any aspect that supports the story and the director's vision is a worthy goal.

Blind tests aren't of much use. The zakuto blind tests says that a GH1 and 35mm film are equal. So why didn't camera development stop there? It would indicate 10 bit log, 4k, high bitrate, and anything beyond 8 stops of dynamic range, doesn't really matter. Cameras aren't developed or sold on blind tests. I don't think any professional is choosing a camera based on blind tests either. They have certainly offered no use to me.

You can argue IQ has nothing to do with making a pleasing looking image. That is definitely true in many ways. But it has nothing to do with marketing. You can say that marketing is all bullshit. I'd agree with that. 8k is useless for 99% of people yet it is a great buzzword for marketing. You are saying though that 14 bit recording is useless and blind tests somehow prove this.

If you are simply trying to say that 14 bit isn't marketable, that could be true. I am not a marketing specialist.  But camera companies don't use blind tests to market or else they would all be out of business.

In my experience when you actually use a camera on production and work with it through post, then you see a difference. There isn't really much debate there. Can a film look good that isn't shot on a cinema camera? Yes of course. But cameras like ARRI and RED are industry favored by pretty much any DP you would ask.

To me DP's are usually the last people to fall for marketing hype. These people see images constantly from production all the way to the finished product. ARRI isn't favored because of internet blind tests, they are favored because they actually make production and post workflow much easier. I'd love it if my S1 could give me the same image as an Alexa. But from my experience it just doesn't.

If you want a good test of a camera shoot 100 different scenes in all different scenarios, time restraints, lighting conditions, different sized crews, and then color correct and grade all of the shots and scenes. Do that with 5 different cameras and than compare them all. Well that couldn't be put in a little 5 minute youtube video. Stuff that is actually helpful can't be compressed into a little youtube video. Experience gotten from months of shooting and in post gives one a good idea of what matters.

Anyways 14 bit plus capture, even if it is just the readout is the way forward to better IQ imo. The Alexa shooting in 422 is still using a 14 bit readout. That is partially why it looks way better than cameras that are shooting 12 bit linear raw, which is a marketing scam.  12 bit linear raw really doesn't give you any more information to work with than a good 10 bit ALL-I. The advantage is it sometimes gets around the horrid internal processing many cameras do to their 10 bit options for some reason. But it also often reveals how shitty consumer sensors are in the shadows, bad colored noise and banding that is normally hidden by heavy noise reduction.

The Alexa has a 14 bit readout regardless of if you shoot 422 or 444 or RAW.

Anyways I am just expressing my disappointment in camera development. I would extend that disappointment to the high end cameras as well. RED is partially to blame in my opinion. They pushed the whole high resolution band wagon that consumer cameras jumped on. 10 years later and the best camera in the world the Alexa 35 only shoots 4k, while RED releases cameras for 1/2 what they did their previous line-up, with sensors that can't even match ARRI's 5 year old cameras. 13 years ago the Alexa came onto the market, the camera that replaced film essentially. 13 years later it's still the best sensor on the market, only surpassed by ARRI's own Alexa 35.

It's unfortunate resolution got put on the forefront of development instead of color depth, which also leads to increased dynamic range.

Am I saying the 5D MK3 is the pinnacle of image quality? No I am not. But it was capable of giving you a high bitrate 14 bit 1080p image. That was 11 years ago. Why can't we have 14 bit RAW 3K-4K in a small prosumer camera 11 years later. We get the same releases with a MK2 slapped onto it, with micro improvements. Very annoying.

Now you can tell me these are first world problems and I will gladly agree. I am in between projects right now and don't have any kids, so I have the time. And if this forum is not the place to vent about the BS that camera companies do than maybe I am just very confused.

 

No such thing. Unless we don’t actually use any of this stuff we talk about, ie, simply collect and then talk about the next thing that might actually work as the current thing doesn’t actually have magical properties…
I think some folks really do think that if they point the latest ‘Netflix Approved’ camera at their wife & kids, the results will indeed look like a Netflix production… 🤔
Wedding season starts for me in 2 days. These S1H’s had better make my clients weddings look like Ozark…

Blind tests aren't of much use. The zakuto blind tests says that a GH1 and 35mm film are equal. So why didn't camera development stop there? It would indicate 10 bit log, 4k, high bitrate, and anything beyond 8 stops of dynamic range, doesn't really matter. Cameras aren't developed or sold on blind tests. I don't think any professional is choosing a camera based on blind tests either. They have certainly offered no use to me.

You can argue IQ has nothing to do with making a pleasing looking image. That is definitely true in many ways. But it has nothing to do with marketing. You can say that marketing is all bullshit. I'd agree with that. 8k is useless for 99% of people yet it is a great buzzword for marketing. You are saying though that 14 bit recording is useless and blind tests somehow prove this.

If you are simply trying to say that 14 bit isn't marketable, that could be true. I am not a marketing specialist.  But camera companies don't use blind tests to market or else they would all be out of business.

In my experience when you actually use a camera on production and work with it through post, then you see a difference. There isn't really much debate there. Can a film look good that isn't shot on a cinema camera? Yes of course. But cameras like ARRI and RED are industry favored by pretty much any DP you would ask.

To me DP's are usually the last people to fall for marketing hype. These people see images constantly from production all the way to the finished product. ARRI isn't favored because of internet blind tests, they are favored because they actually make production and post workflow much easier. I'd love it if my S1 could give me the same image as an Alexa. But from my experience it just doesn't.

If you want a good test of a camera shoot 100 different scenes in all different scenarios, time restraints, lighting conditions, different sized crews, and then color correct and grade all of the shots and scenes. Do that with 5 different cameras and than compare them all. Well that couldn't be put in a little 5 minute youtube video. Stuff that is actually helpful can't be compressed into a little youtube video. Experience gotten from months of shooting and in post gives one a good idea of what matters.

Anyways 14 bit plus capture, even if it is just the readout is the way forward to better IQ imo. The Alexa shooting in 422 is still using a 14 bit readout. That is partially why it looks way better than cameras that are shooting 12 bit linear raw, which is a marketing scam.  12 bit linear raw really doesn't give you any more information to work with than a good 10 bit ALL-I. The advantage is it sometimes gets around the horrid internal processing many cameras do to their 10 bit options for some reason. But it also often reveals how shitty consumer sensors are in the shadows, bad colored noise and banding that is normally hidden by heavy noise reduction.

The Alexa has a 14 bit readout regardless of if you shoot 422 or 444 or RAW.

Anyways I am just expressing my disappointment in camera development. I would extend that disappointment to the high end cameras as well. RED is partially to blame in my opinion. They pushed the whole high resolution band wagon that consumer cameras jumped on. 10 years later and the best camera in the world the Alexa 35 only shoots 4k, while RED releases cameras for 1/2 what they did their previous line-up, with sensors that can't even match ARRI's 5 year old cameras. 13 years ago the Alexa came onto the market, the camera that replaced film essentially. 13 years later it's still the best sensor on the market, only surpassed by ARRI's own Alexa 35.

It's unfortunate resolution got put on the forefront of development instead of color depth, which also leads to increased dynamic range.

Am I saying the 5D MK3 is the pinnacle of image quality? No I am not. But it was capable of giving you a high bitrate 14 bit 1080p image. That was 11 years ago. Why can't we have 14 bit RAW 3K-4K in a small prosumer camera 11 years later. We get the same releases with a MK2 slapped onto it, with micro improvements. Very annoying.

Now you can tell me these are first world problems and I will gladly agree. I am in between projects right now and don't have any kids, so I have the time. And if this forum is not the place to vent about the BS that camera companies do than maybe I am just very confused.

 

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.

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.

Blind tests aren't of much use. The zakuto blind tests says that a GH1 and 35mm film are equal. So why didn't camera development stop there? It would indicate 10 bit log, 4k, high bitrate, and anything beyond 8 stops of dynamic range, doesn't really matter. Cameras aren't developed or sold on blind tests. I don't think any professional is choosing a camera based on blind tests either. They have certainly offered no use to me.

You can argue IQ has nothing to do with making a pleasing looking image. That is definitely true in many ways. But it has nothing to do with marketing. You can say that marketing is all bullshit. I'd agree with that. 8k is useless for 99% of people yet it is a great buzzword for marketing. You are saying though that 14 bit recording is useless and blind tests somehow prove this.

If you are simply trying to say that 14 bit isn't marketable, that could be true. I am not a marketing specialist.  But camera companies don't use blind tests to market or else they would all be out of business.

In my experience when you actually use a camera on production and work with it through post, then you see a difference. There isn't really much debate there. Can a film look good that isn't shot on a cinema camera? Yes of course. But cameras like ARRI and RED are industry favored by pretty much any DP you would ask.

To me DP's are usually the last people to fall for marketing hype. These people see images constantly from production all the way to the finished product. ARRI isn't favored because of internet blind tests, they are favored because they actually make production and post workflow much easier. I'd love it if my S1 could give me the same image as an Alexa. But from my experience it just doesn't.

If you want a good test of a camera shoot 100 different scenes in all different scenarios, time restraints, lighting conditions, different sized crews, and then color correct and grade all of the shots and scenes. Do that with 5 different cameras and than compare them all. Well that couldn't be put in a little 5 minute youtube video. Stuff that is actually helpful can't be compressed into a little youtube video. Experience gotten from months of shooting and in post gives one a good idea of what matters.

Anyways 14 bit plus capture, even if it is just the readout is the way forward to better IQ imo. The Alexa shooting in 422 is still using a 14 bit readout. That is partially why it looks way better than cameras that are shooting 12 bit linear raw, which is a marketing scam.  12 bit linear raw really doesn't give you any more information to work with than a good 10 bit ALL-I. The advantage is it sometimes gets around the horrid internal processing many cameras do to their 10 bit options for some reason. But it also often reveals how shitty consumer sensors are in the shadows, bad colored noise and banding that is normally hidden by heavy noise reduction.

The Alexa has a 14 bit readout regardless of if you shoot 422 or 444 or RAW.

Anyways I am just expressing my disappointment in camera development. I would extend that disappointment to the high end cameras as well. RED is partially to blame in my opinion. They pushed the whole high resolution band wagon that consumer cameras jumped on. 10 years later and the best camera in the world the Alexa 35 only shoots 4k, while RED releases cameras for 1/2 what they did their previous line-up, with sensors that can't even match ARRI's 5 year old cameras. 13 years ago the Alexa came onto the market, the camera that replaced film essentially. 13 years later it's still the best sensor on the market, only surpassed by ARRI's own Alexa 35.

It's unfortunate resolution got put on the forefront of development instead of color depth, which also leads to increased dynamic range.

Am I saying the 5D MK3 is the pinnacle of image quality? No I am not. But it was capable of giving you a high bitrate 14 bit 1080p image. That was 11 years ago. Why can't we have 14 bit RAW 3K-4K in a small prosumer camera 11 years later. We get the same releases with a MK2 slapped onto it, with micro improvements. Very annoying.

Now you can tell me these are first world problems and I will gladly agree. I am in between projects right now and don't have any kids, so I have the time. And if this forum is not the place to vent about the BS that camera companies do than maybe I am just very confused.

 

https://smallhd.com/products/action-5

I haven't shot 5D3 ML in many years but the 14-bit colors you get out of that Canon sensor are among the nicest I've ever seen short of an ARRI. There is something about that generation of Canons in general and it gets fully unleashed with ML RAW. 
Blind tests don't mean so much, its when you have the actual footage inside your NLE and push the grade that is when the magic is felt, no pun intended.
Yes we have a multitude of high resolution, high DR cams that shoot 10-bit, ProRes & RAW. Its fantastic and what I use for commercial projects etc. That being said there is no denying 5D3 ML RAW still has incredible mojo despite all the fuss and old sensor limitations. I am probably going to repurchase a 5D3 in the near future just to revisit that camera in general for both stills & ML. I was looking at old pics & footage from it just the other day and was instantly hit by the nostalgia that the images produce. 
C100, C300 & 1DC also have such mojo imo, even on their outdated internal codecs.

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.

12 bit log has a similar amount of info as 14 bit linear raw. But yeah the image definitely looks very nice regardless.

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.

 

I honestly would go with the FX30 over the FX3. The A7S3/FX3 have too much image processing which ruin the internal 10 bit recordings. Shooting external RAW bypasses this but its an annoying workaround that doesn't offer much benefit aside from bypassing the ugly internal processing.

Used the FX30 recently on a short, which included low light scenes and it looked great. Film grain was added in post but the original recordings were pretty clean.
 
 

I honestly would go with the FX30 over the FX3. The A7S3/FX3 have too much image processing which ruin the internal 10 bit recordings. Shooting external RAW bypasses this but its an annoying workaround that doesn't offer much benefit aside from bypassing the ugly internal processing.

Used the FX30 recently on a short, which included low light scenes and it looked great. Film grain was added in post but the original recordings were pretty clean.
 
 

Hehe, couldnt resist and had to get one. A 250.000 shutter though, but still working. For 300EU. Got a 5D2 for much cheaper two months ago. In great shape, 30.000 shutter, for 150. Seller contacted me to give me a nifty fifty 1.8 and a nice backpack for free. Anyway, now I gotta use these beauties. Any quick and tasty infos on the differences? Some prefer the look from the 5D2? 5D3 much more hasslefree to use in Magic Lantern RAW due to dual card slots? cheers

Yeah it is plenty bright. I would say SmallHD is less reflective and more color accurate but you pay a premium for them. Atomos is the 2nd best in my opinion.

I honestly would go with the FX30 over the FX3. The A7S3/FX3 have too much image processing which ruin the internal 10 bit recordings. Shooting external RAW bypasses this but its an annoying workaround that doesn't offer much benefit aside from bypassing the ugly internal processing.

Used the FX30 recently on a short, which included low light scenes and it looked great. Film grain was added in post but the original recordings were pretty clean.
 
 

How does Panasonic have a perfect IQ processing formula and than mess it up upon every new release? lol

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

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

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.