Jump to content
webrunner5

Hasselblad H6D 100C Review. Shoots 4k Video MF

Recommended Posts

EOSHD Pro Color for Sony cameras EOSHD Pro LOG for Sony CamerasEOSHD C-LOG and Film Profiles for All Canon DSLRs
1 hour ago, jcs said:

@fuzzynormal @noone take a look at the Voigtlander F.95 options for M43 :) 

Thanks.

 

I was aware of the Voigtlander 0.95 lenses but I did forget there is a 17.5 one which would match closely enough the 45 2.8 MF lens.     Maybe a little more even than some and a little less than others (depending on sensor size).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
26 minutes ago, noone said:

I was aware of the Voigtlander 0.95 lenses but I did forget there is a 17.5 one which would match closely enough the 45 2.8 MF lens.     Maybe a little more even than some and a little less than others (depending on sensor size).

And you can go even wider, 10.5mm F.95 http://www.mirrorlessons.com/2015/07/07/extra-fast-extra-wide-the-voigtlander-10-5mm-f0-95-review/

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 hours ago, jcs said:

The Red Weapon 8K sensor is slightly wider than FF, and many FF lenses can be used: http://blog.abelcine.com/2015/07/23/red-weapon-8k-lens-options/. The Panavision DXL http://www.panavision.com/panavision-announces-new-large-format-digital-camera , while able to use MF lenses is still honestly marketed as a full frame sensor.

I think the sensor is too big for most FF lenses, unless one is okay with cropping out vignetting.

 

I have never seen the DXL marketed as a FF camera.

 

 

12 hours ago, jcs said:

For decent quality digital acquisition, I think the ARRI 65 is the only MF game in town right now.

The Kipon MF adapter is yielding excellent results.  I would certainly consider it for any MF shooting.

 

Again, if one is okay with the crop and with the slight loss of resolution, an MF lens with a dummy adapter on a FF camera also works.

 

Some projects rent IMAX gear.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@tupp they're calling it large format and full frame in this press release, which I think is fair(-ish) relative to the industry standard Super35 http://www.panavision.com/panavision-announces-new-large-format-digital-camera:

Quote

“What is exciting,” adds Cioni, “is that cinematographers will notice how 8K acquisition creates images that are smoother, not sharper. With a full frame 35-megapixel imager, DXL provides a super-sampled image, much like large format still photography, so that its smoothness is retained whether you finish in 4K, 2K, or HD.”  

They're pushing it a bit with the repetition of 'large format' when it's not even medium format (just a hair over full frame). Panavision gear is amazing and they have a wonderful history, it's unfortunate that marketing folks are driven to spin things in hopes of increasing sales, including doing equivalence tests wrong to demonstrate an advantage of one format over another as posted in a prior link.

Looks like a decent selection of FF lenses cover Red Weapon 8K / DXL, including some from Zeiss, Schneider, and Canon CN-E (a starter list from Phil Holland): http://www.reduser.net/forum/showthread.php?140564-RED-Weapon-8K-Lens-Coverage-Information

The Kipon FF MF is cool if will work with one's selection of MF lenses, though someone just posted some quality and compatibility issues in that old thread. FF seems to be the sweet spot right now for lens options- the standard for still photography for so many years.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, jcs said:

@tupp they're calling it large format and full frame in this press release, which I think is fair(-ish) relative to the industry standard Super35 http://www.panavision.com/panavision-announces-new-large-format-digital-camera:

They're pushing it a bit with the repetition of 'large format' when it's not even medium format (just a hair over full frame). Panavision gear is amazing and they have a wonderful history, it's unfortunate that marketing folks are driven to spin things in hopes of increasing sales, including doing equivalence tests wrong to demonstrate an advantage of one format over another as posted in a prior link.

Looks like a decent selection of FF lenses cover Red Weapon 8K / DXL, including some from Zeiss, Schneider, and Canon CN-E (a starter list from Phil Holland): http://www.reduser.net/forum/showthread.php?140564-RED-Weapon-8K-Lens-Coverage-Information

The Kipon FF MF is cool if will work with one's selection of MF lenses, though someone just posted some quality and compatibility issues in that old thread. FF seems to be the sweet spot right now for lens options- the standard for still photography for so many years.

I thought about this for a moment - I think there are 2 different races going on atm...

One is for quality - 4K, and the other is for more in the frame - sensor size.

People are getting aesthetically confused as to what they like about a shot or video.

This is all taking us further away from the race for good content.

EDIT; and lest we forget DR. When was the last time you liked a video because of DR?

We must understand what all these things serve, for example - great full frame with shallow dof works great for music videos and fashion, and great dr works great for flexibility in post to control moods in narrative and documentary - but we should not serve them. They should serve us.

Luckily enough cameras are getting so inexpensive that you can own multiple cameras and choose them like film stock on a project by project basis. That is what I am doing.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

4 hours ago, HelsinkiZim said:

you can own multiple cameras and choose them like film stock on a project by project basis. That is what I am doing.

Yup.  I have a few cameras that capably handle 90% of my work, but when I'm doing something more serious or particular, I'll rent what serves the need.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@HelsinkiZim I think you're right about 4K and sensor size. Marketing folks need something to differentiate new products, and making things 'more', such as more pixels, or a larger sensor, greater dynamic range, more low light (higher ISO) performance, or higher frame rates, is what helps them sell products. Sony is a master at this. Canon and ARRI, on the other hand, focus on color (and ARRI is king of DR). RED pioneered 'more-ing' resolution and frame rates, plus their cameras are a techno-nerd's dream of hyper-complexity, kind of the opposite of ARRI which is comparatively very simple and just works (my preference).

One thing I don't recall seeing very often is 'more'd' color science. It's like they don't want to point out that their previous color science wasn't very good, and then quietly improve it with each iteration (e.g. Sony and Panasonic). RED fessed up recently and completely rewrote their image processing pipeline and color science: http://www.red.com/news/upgrade-your-workflow-with-ipp2-reds-new-image-processing-pipeline . Highlight processing and skintones are much improved. Not yet up to ARRI levels, though impressive they were able to do this without hardware changes. ARRI looks amazing for DR/highlights partly due to their dual read-out ALEV III sensor.

They gotta give us 'more' or improve something else we wouldn't 'need' to upgrade our gear ;) 

 

Content is of course king, time to get back to work :) 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
39 minutes ago, webrunner5 said:

Pretty crazy that you can't buy a Panavision DXL, only rent one.

Yeah same for ARRI 65.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 hours ago, jcs said:

Panavision gear is amazing and they have a wonderful history, it's unfortunate that marketing folks are driven to spin things in hopes of increasing sales

"rentals"

 

 

12 hours ago, jcs said:

Looks like a decent selection of FF lenses cover Red Weapon 8K / DXL, including some from Zeiss, Schneider, and Canon CN-E (a starter list from Phil Holland): http://www.reduser.net/forum/showthread.php?140564-RED-Weapon-8K-Lens-Coverage-Information

Thanks for the link.  However, that's a sparse list compared to the zillions of FF lenses out there.  I would worry about vignetting with most Canon EFs and Nikkors.

 

 

12 hours ago, jcs said:

The Kipon FF MF is cool if will work with one's selection of MF lenses, though someone just posted some quality and compatibility issues in that old thread.

The issue could be similar to some lenses not mounting to the Metabones EF speedbooster -- there is an inner metal flange that prevents some wide angle lenses from being mounted.

 

 

4 hours ago, jcs said:

Canon and ARRI, on the other hand, focus on color (and ARRI is king of DR). RED pioneered 'more-ing' resolution and frame rates, plus their cameras are a techno-nerd's dream of hyper-complexity, kind of the opposite of ARRI which is comparatively very simple and just works (my preference).

One thing I don't recall seeing very often is 'more'd' color science. It's like they don't want to point out that their previous color science wasn't very good, and then quietly improve it with each iteration (e.g. Sony and Panasonic). RED fessed up recently and completely rewrote their image processing pipeline and color science: http://www.red.com/news/upgrade-your-workflow-with-ipp2-reds-new-image-processing-pipeline .

There's nothing wrong with the Panavision DXL color -- it was overseen by Light Iron from the early design/engineering phases.  It's a rather unique and advanced approach.

 

I would call Vision Research a "pioneer" resolution and frame rates before I would give that title to RED.  Which reminds me -- the Phantom 65 is another excellent medium format cinematography camera that one can shoot with right now.  VR recently discontinued that model, but they are still available in rental, and there are probably some shooters who still use them at normal frame rates as a nice MF alternative.

 

 

2 hours ago, webrunner5 said:

Pretty crazy that you can't buy a Panavision DXL, only rent one.

Panavision has always been a "manufacturing" rental house.  That is why they can create such amazing special items and one-offs that normal manufacturers can't even touch.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 4/11/2017 at 7:21 PM, jcs said:

...and completely rewrote their image processing pipeline and color science

As a tangent: it's curious to me that it's referred to as "color-science" since the whole thing is so darn subjective, but that's just me being pedantic.  I mean, there's chemistry involved in cooking, but we all consider an accomplished chef more akin to an artist than lab technicians, right?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, fuzzynormal said:

As a tangent: it's curious to me that it's referred to as "color-science" since the whole thing is so darn subjective, but that's just me being pedantic.  I mean, there's chemistry involved in cooking, but we all consider an accomplished chef more akin to an artist than lab technicians, right?

Of all attributes in a camera, color requires the most science. From the point where the photons hit the color filter array (or ND or IR filter) to the final pixels viewed on a display device via biological cameras and neural networks (people), that entire pipeline is insanely complicated physics, math, and biology: science!

Khan is pretty good a simplifying complex stuff: https://www.khanacademy.org/partner-content/pixar/color (check out some of those videos- very well done!)

There's a reason ARRI and Canon are dominant, and it's not about subjective taste: they have superior color science. ARRI spent years working with film, then film scanners before building digital cameras. Canon makes printers, copiers, scanners, inks, paper, etc. in addition to cameras. They are currently the pinnacle of expertise in color- it makes sense their cameras have worked so well with color. It's why they can make cameras with limited features compared to other brands and still easily outsell them: color is the most important attribute of a camera.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, jcs said:

There's a reason ARRI and Canon are dominant, and it's not about subjective taste: they have superior color science. ARRI spent years working with film, then film scanners before building digital cameras. Canon makes printers, copiers, scanners, inks, paper, etc. in addition to cameras. They are currently the pinnacle of expertise in color- it makes sense their cameras have worked so well with color. It's why they can make cameras with limited features compared to other brands and still easily outsell them: color is the most important attribute of a camera

Or it could be that because they are dominant, that people have become used to their colours and have come to like them?

They didn't become dominant because of colour mainly I think.

I prefer colour closer to what I actually see and for that, I do like Sony though have never been unhappy with colour from any brand really.

Thanks for the reminder (I have to buy some more Canon ink for my cheap printer (ink is dearer than the printer).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 minutes ago, noone said:

Or it could be that because they are dominant, that people have become used to their colours and have come to like them?

If that were true, why is ARRI considered to be right up there with Canon for color (some argue they have better color)? There is a biological, psychological element with color related to evolution. Human beings are very tuned in to color for skintones, on both conscious and unconscious levels. If the skin tones are off, we tend to notice right away- is the person healthy or sick, friendly or threatening, happy or frightened, etc. The concept of Uncanny Valley is also a factor: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uncanny_valley . If something is close to real, but off slightly, we have a strong negative reaction. So color needs to be right on, or very off (cartoon) to work well. Canon (and ARRI) know this, and if colors aren't exact on color charts, the reason is they are biasing for skin tone colors which will have the best positive emotional reaction from humans. Colorists make colors 'off' on purpose for emotional reasons, ScFi/horror etc.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
18 minutes ago, jcs said:

If that were true, why is ARRI considered to be right up there with Canon for color (some argue they have better color)? There is a biological, psychological element with color related to evolution. Human beings are very tuned in to color for skintones, on both conscious and unconscious levels. If the skin tones are off, we tend to notice right away- is the person healthy or sick, friendly or threatening, happy or frightened, etc. The concept of Uncanny Valley is also a factor: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uncanny_valley . If something is close to real, but off slightly, we have a strong negative reaction. So color needs to be right on, or very off (cartoon) to work well. Canon (and ARRI) know this, and if colors aren't exact on color charts, the reason is they are biasing for skin tone colors which will have the best positive emotional reaction from humans. Colorists make colors 'off' on purpose for emotional reasons, ScFi/horror etc.

I am still not convinced.

Skin colour (and any colour) isn't viewed under the same light only and therefore will always look different.

We often develop our likes from what we have been brought up with.

Are we over thinking colour?       Again, I have never had any camera that I didn't like the colour from and most cameras/photos/video can have changes to colour anyway.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I have to agree with @jcs. If you don't get skin tones right, and  I mean close to dead nuts right, even in dark areas, you might as well scrap the whole project.

We, as humans, look at humans first in any shot, video, photograph. It is an instinctive reaction. "Fight or Flight" syndrome. And men and women look for different things in the scene. Human Nature.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
59 minutes ago, noone said:

I am still not convinced.

Skin colour (and any colour) isn't viewed under the same light only and therefore will always look different.

We often develop our likes from what we have been brought up with.

Are we over thinking colour?       Again, I have never had any camera that I didn't like the colour from and most cameras/photos/video can have changes to colour anyway.

Then maybe you might need to get more in touch with your emotions ;). Color to the typical (non technical) viewer is about emotion.

The color (or colour as seen across the pond :P) we see in real life is the dominate color our neural networks have generalized, which has effectively been running for millions (perhaps billions) of years, starting when the first bio-eye sensors developed.

You and I (and each of us) are just one sample. Statistically, the law of large numbers (samples) give us the best view of what's real, or not.

When I was trying to 'like' Sony color, I did experiments with models and actors/actresses. I'd shoot on the 5D3, then on the Sony A7S and FS700, same lighting and scene. Then I'd process the images/video to have the same basic contrast, detail and sharpness. The primary difference was then color. Even when I thought I'd figured out how to get Sony looking as good as Canon, every single time they still picked Canon. You might argue, 'hey man, you just suck at grading, haha!' possibly true, however I did my best to make Sony color palatable to talent, who could care less about the tech. Without Canon color matching, their emotional reactions of dislike for Sony vs. Canon was much more dramatic.

I've posted comments like this many times on this forum, using a Canon camera to take a reference image for later color matching with Sony (or Panasonic etc.). The A7S II has much better color than the A7S, and it was much easier to get close to Canon. Andrew finally took notice and did his own experiments and produced a set of cameras settings and LUTs to 'fix' Sony (and Panasonic) color to better match Canon, and from the threads it looks like a successful product for him as people seem to like the results.

Here's a test I did to match A7S II, C300 II, and 1DX II (I got the A7S II close, but not perfect): 

@bunk did a minor tweak and matched the color even better (which camera is which?): small_adjustment.jpg

So Canon is still the preferred color by most people based just on evidence from this forum alone. In terms of profitability, posts on this forum state Canon is profitable yet other brands are struggling. Since Canon cameras have far less features, it's clear that color is why people buy them. When folks ask me which camera to purchase, I ask is it for shooting people mostly, and if yes, I recommend Canon (or Nikon; Fuji is looking decent these days as well, but to my eye Canon is still the best (unless one has an ARRI budget). Black Magic and RED have come a long way too). If one can do a little bit of post work, the A7S II (for low light) and the A7R II (decent autofocus) aren't too shabby for color. As I've been saying for a while, if the A7S III has decent AF (better than the A7R II) and the color improves again as it did moving up from the A7S, it will be a good challenger to Canon.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, jcs said:

color is the most important attribute of a camera.

My preferred cameras over the years have been Canon.  But honestly, after awhile I thought the color skewed too much into the magenta.  I've never disliked the Canon look, just maybe got bored with it?

I know a lot of folks bitch about Panasonic, but I'm usually like, "eh, looks decent."  Sony?  Well, the complaints there are somewhat warranted.  Although, when shooting in Asia I kinda thought the colors looked very acceptable.

And ultimately, I confess, I'm a black & white sort of guy.  Maybe because for the first 10 years of my image creation years I was playing around in the darkroom?  I don't know, but most of my fav movies are B&W.

Anyone that shoots can put in as much angst and effort into their color as they see fit.  I acknowledge the desire of some to do so, but I find light and shadow more intriguing.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Most of my shooting that involves people varies greatly for lighting.  

Skin tone is going to be what it is and to that end I prefer it to look as close to what was actually there at the time.

I would love to show one of the two songs I recorded at the gig these were taken at.  Skin tones are the same as the photos (plus others including bright red)    One day, I might be able to post it to YouTube.

Even if I can light what I am seeing it isn't always going to be the same.

Sarah McLeod

 

DSC04784.jpg

DSC04785.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Restore formatting

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


×
×
  • Create New...