Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
Andrew Reid

Video quality charts - February 2014

Recommended Posts

EOSHD Pro Color for Sony cameras EOSHD Pro LOG for Sony CamerasEOSHD C-LOG and Film Profiles for All Canon DSLRs

I've shot virtually all of your Level cameras except the F5 and C500. I still think Epic color science was much to be desired. Range is great but skin tones are not there. If it was pure IQ/grade ability I'd put the F65 on top. 16 bit color / 8 k down sample is hard to beat. Just rarely used it because it's ergonomics stink and initially its work flow was cumbersome. I also think the F55 deserves a higher slot. If you shoot in 4k raw it delivers an incredibly gradeable image with global shutter and 16 bit color. 16 bit epecially with 4k cameras is a big deal as Epic tends to spread its butter thin so speak. The time I've wasted trying to get skin to look just right.

 

I had a GH3 and ditched it for a 5d3 because I found its DR too limited as well as its noise threshold. Sure it's sharper but the image, fleshtones, general color are no match for 5d3 IMO.

 

Eitherway, it's a cool list and definitely puts things in perspective when you see DSLR's knocking at the door of Level 1.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What I really like about the list is that it is not a top 10 and its not a price oriented grouping.  There were a couple cameras I was looking at and they appear in the same league which is nice.  Its also interesting that consumer/prosumer camcorders don't really appear on the list.  I'm assuming it is mostly do to the lack of interchangable lens and the small chip size.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't understand how the Red Dragon ranked so low. The dynamic range surpasses film for the first time natively, has new and improved color science, great highlight roll off, great low light, etc. I'd take Red Dragon over absolutely everything for the DR alone, considering that everything else about it is lovely as well. I'm an Alexa and BMCC fan, but that 16.5+ stops is amazing and opens up ability to shoot in natural lighting scenarios that are even too challenging for the Alexa.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi. Newb here, but still...

A bit curious as to how you made up thi list.
I took part in the CML/UWE camera-test where we tested most RAW cinema-cameras, including most on your list + Phantom Flex 4k, KineRAW, SineCam and then some.

I have started to publish some complimentary results here.

 

How did you come up with this ranking and what exactly does it mean?

Best:
Gunleik Groven

---

My Blog
 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

'?do=embed' frameborder='0' data-embedContent>>

 

Interesting to see how these lists compare a year later. Resolution isn't everything- I would put the Alexa on top for overall image quality. They designed their sensor after learning from years of experience building film scanners.

 

We used to argue about whether digital effects for audio would ever match or surpass analog gear. Finally a few years ago, even the most stalwart musician friend finally agreed digital matched analog with the Axe Fx: http://www.fractalaudio.com

 

I just watched MiB II again and was blown away with some of the shots in terms of skin tone and color (Eastman EXR 100T 5248). Is it possible to convert my 5D3 (RAW) or FS700 (RAW) to look like that with something like FilmConvert (two cameras I use)? No, not yet, as I don't think anyone has accurately modeled the film process well enough yet to emulate what film does with light. Initial ADCs and DACs sounded harsh and brittle when CD's were first released (folks still dig records and tapes). Now digital audio is fantastic (and most folks listen to highly compressed audio on iPod/Phone/Droid or cheap computer speakers!).

 

Digital cameras are still very much like early digital audio. Matching the pleasing look of film has not yet been achieved with digital; so far ARRI has gotten the closest, and FilmConvert has made a good start. Accurately modeling and simulating film with digital cameras will happen someday. Why bother? Because it looks better, especially for narrative (where unreality and dreaminess are helpful in storytelling). Dynamic range, resolution, lack of aliasing, and accurate color processing are all very important. The last piece of the puzzle is (optionally) being able to get highlights and skin tones etc. to look like film.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

'?do=embed' frameborder='0' data-embedContent>>

 

Interesting to see how these lists compare a year later. Resolution isn't everything- I would put the Alexa on top for overall image quality. They designed their sensor after learning from years of experience building film scanners.

 

We used to argue about whether digital effects for audio would ever match or surpass analog gear. Finally a few years ago, even the most stalwart musician friend finally agreed digital matched analog with the Axe Fx: http://www.fractalaudio.com

 

I just watched MiB II again and was blown away with some of the shots in terms of skin tone and color (Eastman EXR 100T 5248). Is it possible to convert my 5D3 (RAW) or FS700 (RAW) to look like that with something like FilmConvert (two cameras I use)? No, not yet, as I don't think anyone has accurately modeled the film process well enough yet to emulate what film does with light. Initial ADCs and DACs sounded harsh and brittle when CD's were first released (folks still dig records and tapes). Now digital audio is fantastic (and most folks listen to highly compressed audio on iPod/Phone/Droid or cheap computer speakers!).

 

Digital cameras are still very much like early digital audio. Matching the pleasing look of film has not yet been achieved with digital; so far ARRI has gotten the closest, and FilmConvert has made a good start. Accurately modeling and simulating film with digital cameras will happen someday. Why bother? Because it looks better, especially for narrative (where unreality and dreaminess are helpful in storytelling). Dynamic range, resolution, lack of aliasing, and accurate color processing are all very important. The last piece of the puzzle is (optionally) being able to get highlights and skin tones etc. to look like film.

+1

 

from my own personal experience(advertising) working with kodak film…alexa…dragon…5dm3raw

nothing compares to the quality of kodak film…(excellent skin  tones ..highlights..etc..and no worries for deliverables to client..35mm and super 16mm saves on post)

arri alexa next..

dragon..

5d m3raw 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest d5f8611fa423d0e628c016f9d5c93b47

Now I am curious as to where the GX7 and A6000 slot in.

 

The GX7 would be with or just above the GM1 (same image, more features).

 

The A6000 would probably be just below the D5300/D5200 (similar but inferior image quality) or perhaps equal (easier to use than the Nikons).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes, and this time you need to go to http://www.logmar.dk/  and get one of those beta Super 8 cameras for $3500 and uh, put that one in the mix. Now that's it almost ready to ship it's gonna blow that Alexa away!

 

Seriously though, I love film and am on the fence about either buying or renting a Bolex 16mm for an upcoming project even if my Pocket makes it to me in time since I'm interested in shooting with both as a sort of work flow/cost test. I thought Pro8mm's Anniversary Beaulieu in Candy Red at $2500 was....niche but a interesting stance of sorts. I've even thought about sending in my Canon 814 to those guys for the $495 rebuild/upgrade. But the idea of putting out a Super 8 camera in 2014 with a list of $5500 and offering the beta testing units for $3500 is....well, seems to me even beyond Impossible Project territory. Good for them though. When I first heard about I was even mildly interested but not at that price point. For that kind of money I could rig up a Black Magic camera with accessories and a nice lens......

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The GX7 would be with or just above the GM1 (same image, more features).

 

The A6000 would probably be just below the D5300/D5200 (similar but inferior image quality) or perhaps equal (easier to use than the Nikons).

 

From what I've seen I'm not that sure that the A6000 in terms of details is worse than the D5300.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest fe4a3f5e8381673ce80017d29a8375f1

From what I've seen I'm not that sure that the A6000 in terms of details is worse than the D5300.

 

No not in terms of detail, but moire, aliasing, low light and motion artefacts are all noticeably worse. 

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.

Sign in to follow this  

×
×
  • Create New...