Leaderboard

Though I get what you're saying, As per your example, I don't think anyone in there right mind would shoot a sprawling desert landscape with razor thin DOF wide open. You want to see that beautiful location. Those shots required all to be in focus, but many shots don't. Its a matter of both style choice, mood, directing and subject. All these tools need to be used within a narrative... most of the tests we see aren't a part of any storyline, and are more just stylistic tests.

I, for one, appreciate the sentiment this thread has evolved into. As the technology rapidly becomes more democratic the tools become a commodity. What you do with that tool matters more. I love watching the march of development as much as the next guy, and I like to buy video/film cameras. Canon, Panasonic, Nikon, Hitachi, JVC, Sony, Fuji, Bolex, Arri... I've owned 'em or rented 'em all. But I'm not a fan boy that projects their purchasing commitment/ownership into some sort of brand proselytizing. It's not too hard to imagine that in a decade we'll all have access to numerous small DSLR cameras shooting over 4K with incredible low-light sensitivity, full frame, uncompressed internal flash card recording, 5 axis-stabilization, and over 15 stops of dynamic range. And it'll be pretty cheap to boot. Digital moves fast and we'll have those goodies before you know it. Those that concentrate on the craft rather than the tech will stand out from the numerous numerous people that will also own this gear. As it has always been and and it will always be. It used to be that purchasing a superior camera got you into the realm of "pro" simply by ownership. After all, six figures for a well lensed and rigged camera is serious business, and DOES have value. However, I really think that legacy of the industry will be more and more irrelevant.

You're right about shallow DOF being used to direct the audiences eye. You're wrong in saying that its just to hide bad lighting or framing.

There's definitely a place for low-fi image quality.   Kendy's video shows why hiding stuff is just as important as what you show. The 550D / T2i was a perfect choice for what he wanted to do. I have used that Sigma 30mm F1.4 and it also has character. Nice lens. Not too perfect, not too clinical.   Says Kendy...   The whole film was done over 3 days, post production included. I used my small Canon 550D, everything is natural, no additional lights. I think it is much more atmospheric. I don’t like it when you can see everything clearly on screen because it looks fake. I like the idea of showing just the shapes or the shadows of the characters like in a comic book. I wanted something organic so I added some clean 35mm grains to my footage, because I like the visual render of the old cameras such as the Bolex. For the strange flares effects, I use a broken glass in front of my lens and shot with only one hand. It’s easy with a small camera like the 550d, but could be a pain with an Alexa because of the weight. Because I make everything with After Effects (including the edit) I work very fast. I don’t waste my time by switching between several softwares or video tools.”   Talented guy and without doubt the 99k plays on Behind The Move are there because of his sensitive use of the camera aesthetics, the sensitive handling of music and content, and the content itself including that amazing girl, fantastic dancer, great story. It all matters. ALL of it.   In the case of Behind The Move the low-fi visuals suited the content but what about when they don't? What if you want to film a rich sunset in memory colour and see every blade of grass in a field? The 550D works best with the shallow DOF and medium close-ups seen in Behind The Move because it hides a lot of the flaws, like a lack of detail, moire and aliasing, compression, muted colour, etc. There will be a LOT of content that these issues don't suit and it helps to know about it before getting all inspired over someone else's content and picking a camera that might be completely ill-suited to your own.   Also shooting style has a lot to do with it. Here the 550D is on a relatively slow-shutter speed and all handheld, with some great framing going on. Kendy's camera work here is like a high wire act. If you don't always get the framing emotionally connected with the mood and the subject matter, the slight of hand will be revealed the magic vanishes. If your shooting style is locked down, on a tripod, the 550D is the last thing you'd want to use, believe me. If your shooting style is more dynamic and flowing, then you'd probably be better off investing in drones and rigs rather than cameras anyway. Everyone is different.   I want epic scenery, anamorphic, striking visuals, super rich colours and rich details. Sometimes I may want handheld camera-work, even black & white, a grungy low contrast low resolution feel. Why not start off with as high a quality image as you can get your hands on and rough it up? The glass in front of the lens in some shots in Kendy's movie is an example of that. Making stuff look less clean, less 'real', more magical and otherworldly.   The technology needs to keep improving and the shooter needs to stay on top of it.   I am already imagining ways where Kendy's video could have been improved in terms of lenses and cameras!   It doesn't need to be improved though because the muted, low-fi look is perfect for his subject matter... the isolation, loneliness and overwork of the dancer, being stretched this way and that in a big city away from home.   If the film was longer and we followed her back home and there was a loving embrace with her mum or something... maybe you'd not want the same look for that scene.

If I had to choose between both I would go with the Sony because it's better in image quality and video quality, and the autofocus looks pretty damn good.

Nope. I hear these "video" comments when discussing cameras so often and they're really bizarrely off base. Please show me a camcorder that shoots your home videos at that resolution. Theres nothing "home video" about the GH4. The type of camcorder home videos you're thinking of have less resolution, more in focus, blown out highlights. Not remotely similar. The extra resolution is amazing. Its not a bad thing, not a video thing. You can always tone down detail through a whole array of techniques, however you cannot add resolution where there wasn't any. Where you see people using stock lenses on autofocus, without tripods or steadicams and without careful compositions - that is the shaky ugly home video you're seeing. It has nothing to do with the GH4 at all. The tests to show off resolution show what is possible, they're not meant to be film-like. If you have an aerial shot of dolphins in a clear ocean you want that resolution. If you need to greenscreen, you need that resolution. Too much resolution? You simply soften in post. Its that simple, resolution is awesome and the Gh4 is amazing. The reason a focus on people hasn't been used in these tests is because character shots are normally shot wide open, which doesn't get to emphasize the resolution as well as bricks, trees and scenery does. Is the GH4 better than the 5D with raw? They're really close. Each have pro's and cons according to your workflow and depend perhaps on which lenses you own. Your 5DMK3 is a powerhouse. Seriously, time to put that bad boy to work. Have you tried ML raw yet? I know you mentioned before that you were hesitant to try it, but its worthwhile knowing if you can handle the extra hassle for the extra DR. At the end of the day editing is a huge part as well. The biggest advantage the 5D has over the GH4 is full frame, thats about it... but to me thats a big one. I direct commercials and do documentary work. If I was to be given a gift of a choice between the 5D and the GH4 - It would be a tough decision. I travel a lot, so a compact kit is important to me... but so is full frame, low light and top end stills. Decisions, decisions. I don't need a new camera immediately so I might wait for the A7s to decide. But if I owned a 5D, I wouldn't be pondering whether I made a good purchase or not. You on the other hand, have mentioned that you're a school teacher and you've just bought the 5D in order to start doing documentary projects and are still new to both cameras and film. Honestly, you need to forget this obsession about which camera to get and the whole ML raw vs GH4 thing. Its really misdirected, as you have more than enough firepower to win an oscar. Rather buy some interesting lenses, a steadicam, follow focus, anamorphics... stuff like that to play around with. And then upload work for people to critique. Please be careful not to get too carried away at these comparisons at the cost of going out and filming.

This will be THE video camera for doing sex tapes :)

I think the limits of Kendy's gear has allowed him to really focus and hone his style. There's a definite consistency to all his work in terms of style.   It's only one style though, remember that there's a broad range of looks that would need different gear. A wide angle shot of a city would be moire hell on a 550D.   The Sigma 30mm F1.4 is interesting. I picked a battered old one up today for 189 euros. It is actually quite sharp but not too 'perfect'. Goes well with my Iscorama 54 as it is quite stocky but wide, like the Iscorama 54, and the focus ring has quite a short throw. On the Nikon D7100 it looks great. On the BMCC speed booster on my GX7 in 1.28x crop (full sensor, for stills and 1080p) it gives a nice fall off from the centre in terms of vignette while never quite going completely dark in the corners. Nice little character. I can see myself using it. My favourite look of the moment though is still 5D raw + 50mm F1.2L. Unbeatable :)

They've landed in the UK! Mine is shipping tomorrow for delivery on Friday :)

@ Christina : shallow DOF is a creative choice, just as deep focus is one. There is no better or worse. Both are legitimate options and part of the job of a DOP is to make the right choice for every shot. Following your logic, you might as well argue that shooting everything with deep focus is testament to a lazy DOP who can't make up his mind where he wants the scene to go. So he lets everything open to the viewer's interpretation. That would be ludicrous of course. Shallow or deep focus should always be an artistic choice depending on the scene and what you want to say. Exactly the same way we use lighting, reflectors, focal length, choose between handheld/steadicam/crane/dolly/tripod, ... It is one of our tools AND skills as DOP's.

A decade!!!! I can't wait that long!!!! Seriously though, everything you've mentioned is pretty much already out there in affordable cameras. The GH4, the A7S, the BMPCC and the EM5 - take the best of each and you're almost there. In terms of technology, there's no reason that camera can't exist at a decent price. The main obstacle is marketing. Hopefully Blackmagic and Panasonic have shaken things up enough to speed things up a bit.

Turn off audio and see if it changes.

Got my RJ FD - M43 Reducer today and got to say, was pretty surprised at how sharp it is! To my eyes, there's no loss of sharpness and the IQ is increased in my opinion. And the stop of light is great, esp on my Kiron 70 - 200m F4 zoom. So is the focal formula for BMPCC 3 by lens by 0.71?

yes matt i do. no its not something that just came up in my mind, check the work of lazlo covacs and zsigmond vilmos two of the best DPs still around ,check the work of gregg toland, probably the best cinematographer ever, he is the contrary of shallow depth of field, noted for his amazing ability to create extreme depth.(citizen cane) it takes some extra talent to keep everything in focus,and keep it interesting, and no anamorphic is not just to preserve resolution, its an artistic choice, that needs alot of creative talent and expertise to pull through..you have a huge canvas and it needs to be perfect. shallow dof, is a gimmick that we use to cover up our mistakes (me included) and make it look "cinematic", but wasnt covacs "easy rider" cinematic enough?

http://ikt.sk/veronika.mts

Do you actually believe that? meaning,is it a hypothesis that you have thought about for some time and are sure about? or is it something you have just pulled out of your ass in the last half an hour? It sounds like the latter. Deep focus is certainly a look that you can decide to go for and works well in a lot of cases. But to suggest that every single shallow depth of field shot or photograph in the world ever is to mask bad framing, bad lighting and cheap ugly backgrounds is patently ridiculous. As for anamorphic. If you are shooting deep focus there is not much point. Anamorphic is primarily to preserve resolution, but with 4k you have more than enough to just crop.

Kendy's style initialy is based on "gimmicks" shallow dof, framing low light, lo-fi mood, which are great because he compensates the lack of "high art" expensive cinema gear. (zeiss cinema lenses, arri cams,etc) as he grows and (money rolls in) i think this will change. Which brings me to the point of "filmic" quality. Shallow DOF is a gimmick, you direct the eyes of the audience to where you want them to look, and hide the (bad lighting, bad framing, cheap ugly backgrounds). The truly great DP&Director, keeps everything in focus, and you look at a moving "painting" where everything is balanced, and of course shoots wide, anamorphic being the ultimate, imo. Lubezki: Many of them were the same rules we had on Tree of Life, where we avoided underexposing the negative and wanted a lot of depth of field. Terry doesn’t tell the audience where to look in the frame — if they want to look at the actors, they can, or if they prefer they can look behind them at the trees. We want complete depth and clarity in order for that to happen, so another rule is to shoot with film that is as grainless as possible — in general, Terry prefers images that are sharper rather than softer.

DigitalWarS I'm in the same boat for my home camera. The 70D has a higher data rate for its H.264 but apparently moire is an issue which is yet unproven for the A6000. The 70D does not have a EVF which is SUPER useful shooting in full sun. Nor is MagicLantern there yet. The Technicolor Cynestyle is fantastic for making the most of consumer cameras, I'm constantly amazed at how well this stuff grades with the Alexa and RED footage we normally get. To be fair the 5D H.264 is terrible compared to those cameras but you can get them in the same ballpark and cut between them, which for a 5DMK3 with L glass costing maybe $5k VS an Alexa with an Angenieux Zoom at maybe $200K is pretty good. You are right Sony E-mount and Sony Zeiss E-mount Lenses are very expensive. I've used a 5DMK3 with the $100 Canon 50mm f1.8 and got fantastic results in both stills and video. Again that isn't the best lens ever, but it has an amazing price to performance ratio. I really like my Helios 44-2 and the manual focus is great but the Cannon 50mm f1.8 has autofocus for stills! I'm wondering if I should buy a super cheap Canon 700D to use with my Canon glass and save up for a A7s when the time is right.

As far as full frame goes, you will avoid vignetting completely at 85mm. As long as you don't stop down too much, you can go as wide as 58mm in my experience.

It really depends upon your needs. If you can do without the portability then it's a no brainer to go for the iMac. More spec for less money. When you need portability you'll still have your current Macbook. I am very glad I went with the iMac. It's pretty future-proof in terms of video too.

LOL Andy- The FD has been out since I first heard about the RJ booster! I bought one in FD and EOS, and actually used the FD version this morning on a shoot! Since my lenses are all FD, vintage Nikon or EOS, I now have them all boosted (Nikon on an EOS adapter). And the FD's get stepless aperture adjustment using the lever. I guess if I ever get any modern Nikon glass I'd need another adapter with the iris adjustment ring there too. Since I also own and use a Canon body, I mostly stick to EOS when it comes to modern glass (and stop down iris on EOS body before placing on adapter when necessary). Which brings me to answer this guy: The Nikon mount is the furthest flange distance of the popular lens types. That means the lens sits farther away from the film/sensor, and why you can almost universally mount a Nikon lens on any other body type (EOS, M4/3, etc) yet not vice versa. The BM focal reducer is a tight fit, as we've already seen. I'm willing to bet that they need all the distance they can get in order to fit that crazy reduction optic in there. EOS might be possible as it is only slightly closer, but Metabones has held out on the EOS mount until they get an active mount working as they did for the Sony adapters. Likely for the very reasons I mentioned above; without an EOS body available to change aperture, modern lenses are difficult to use on a passive dumb adapter. Once they start rolling those out, we might see an EOS adapter for the BM cameras with the same crazy optic, but I feel like anything shorter than that is too tight of a squeeze!

A6k + Sigma 60DN (videosamples comming soon) http://ikt.sk/galeria/digi-foto/sony-a6000-sigma-60dn.html

By the way here's a few frames from Kendy's next film, doesn't look quite so 550D does it? :)     He is very talented, I have followed him on Twitter, let's see what he comes up with next....

Put any of todays video shooting DLSR's in the hands of a talented professional and you will get the 'filmic' (I hate that word) look. In the hands of someone who doesnt know anything about lighting or grading you will get 'videoish' looking images. I have to disagree with Julian here, a few magic bullet film presets will not make your video look like film. Lighting is the key ingredient and working within you cameras boundaries. Then, grading plays a huge part. These days the video look is a trait of the operator/grader and lack of lighting knowledge rather than the camera. The cameras we have today are amazing. Never has the divide between the picture quality of $60,000 camera been so small compared to a $1600 one. Its just that now you have lots of people able to afford these cheaper cameras that don't know how to get the most out of them. Amateurs that need an over sized sensor like that in the 5DIII to help give them what they think is filmic (shallow depth of field) just show how little they really know about film making. Kendy's film on the previous page is a prime example. Shot on a crop sensor, at no point did I think it needed shallower DOF or that it would have benefited from a larger sensor.

One topic that would be great given the recent resurge of "videoish vs filmish" would be taking stills from actual movies and finding out or guessing the lens, aperture, asa, pushing, film,lighting,etc... The next step would be trying to copy the shot (not exactly, just the general set up) with the cameras and lenses you own, and trying to color correct to give it the same density. this blog is a great way to start (the site is a little bit slow) http://evanerichards.com/

Ι would recommend it my friend over the 70D , it has a better sensor, that gives you better image quality, wider dynamic range, and better overall iso performance! It has a great autofocus system, very fast very precise, and a much lighter body to use for your everyday walks! For video it's better too, it gives you better image quality, more organic feel to it, and less to none moire issues (The Canons have problem on this, the XXXD -XXD line) . So I would prefer it overall.

Same with me....I'm undecided with the Sony A6000. Really impressed with the autofocus test and other portrait video as above. BUT what do I get, either the Sony or Panasonic GX7 ? I've a bunch of fast Nikon Ais primes, a decent mic and a Roland digital recorder. I'm hoping Andrew comes up with his review soon so I can make a decision !!!

Wow, this thread is fired up. I really think the GH4 looks good, maybe surprisingly so, but then so does the GH3. Both cameras can hang with the 5D3R raw if you put them in the right setting and use them in the right way. I see the GH4 as a nice improvement over the last generation, but it's lack of raw support means it's not for me.

The dynamic range just gets me on the GH4. I preferred the 5d in every shot. It jumps out at me in highlights mostly.

that speed booster is doing wonderful things. Nice to see the gh4 being exposed and treated properly. the dr looks great. I'd love to see a follow up test with a human subject in medium and close shots with the lenses at f2.8 - f5.6. - the type of aperture at 50mm that works well for slight human movement in frame while maintaining complete facial focus but with good defocus on show. These type of shots will highlight the differences (if there are any to be seen) between a bigger sensor or smaller one.