Leaderboard

http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/news/cinematography-roundtable-roger-deakins-5-751367 Deakins, Libatique, Cronenweth, Beebe... wow, that's alot of damn talent sitting at one table and sharing wisdom. Interesting opinions on 4K and dynamic range.

A is video.   Some people got it perfectly. A bit more compression in the blacks on A and a bit more sharpening in-camera. The raw file had more C/A because Adobe Camera Raw didn't remove it by default and sharpness was left on default as well which is why it looked a little softer.   But the very fact that they look so similar to the general 'audience' with almost a 50-50 split between you on this forum over which was which, shows how good the video is on this camera.

lt's keep this nice and friendly guys! in answer to your innital question - this is one of the reasons I don't like full frame as you do end up having to stop down to f4 - f5.6 range in general to make it match the dof of apsc / 4 perf 35mm film cameras etc . I prefer to push a lens into its sweet spot of artistic look ....full wide open or just one stop down from there thats where I find the magic of a lens is looks wise...not at clinically perfect f5.6 - at which all lens are pretty good. So stopped down to f5.6 in a low light situation is not so good as you either add more lights to the scene/ location (if you artistically can do that without altering the look too much ) or you increase the iso , I dont ever like to go over 800 iso on my Panasonics , I shoot f2 in low light as thats just enough dof without it getting silly narrow . Thats why my Canons are only used for stills every now and then and I shoot everything on micro 4/3 with speedboosters. I prefer a smaller sensor not full frame.

Just received the lens but unfortunately I'm at work. I'll do some tests tonight/tomorrow and get something up! Packaged really well. Solid build, slightly metallic focus feel but very solid. All of the grub screws are snug and a hex key is included for the small screws on the barrel. Caps included as well as a silver collar which seems to be for smaller anamorphics. The small grub screws on the barrel itself could be replaced fairly easily with longer, stronger ones for smaller anamorphics. More later.

Some great guesses in here. Some of you are spot on. Nearly time to reveal which is which...

Rich where did that dropbox image come from, you have an FM unit and your not shouting about it? what gives. ah I get it this is before the FM unit, different setup.

Like most I would guess: - A is raw - B is video Mainly because of perceived detail and what appears to be CA in B. Unless video mode is sharpening and correcting the CA... hmm tricksy!

Please, everybody. Forget about detail, artefacts, etc, and just look at the colors. Narrow your eyes and let the image fall out of focus. Now compare the colors in the two images. In image A there is very little difference between the hues in each color group (e.g. the reds all look very similar). With image B they are all very distinctly different. I assume this points to greater bit depth...

B is raw I was thinking what if Andrew is playing with us and non of the two are raw but both are video just a different grading technique is used? :D

That's why I'm in general not so ga-ga over the 35mm shallow DoF look. Plenty of work out there where the client wants to have enough of the image sharp that the FF advantage just goes away, leaving me with the disadvantage of a unnecessarily large kit.

B doesn't have compression artifacts, but you should return your gh4 for a full refund anyway :p

Quite honestly I think all you "A is raw" people must be colourblind!!! :P I'll put down my video camera for a year if B isn't raw (or at least sell my GH4 and buy an NX1).

Hm, substantially different color signatures between the two images. I'm not going to cheat by delving into any kind of technical analysis tools on the images. Some observations: A is warmer, higher contrast, with significantly deeper blue hues. At the same time, A seems to be crushing colors, visible in both the blue and red hues. A is noticeably sharper than B even viewed at 1080p; zoom in to see that color fringing in B is hurting sharpness quite a bit. Also take a look at the shadow tones - something is off in A, almost some kind of green veiling noisy thing. Zoom in and you'll discover macro blocking in the shadows. My guess? B is the raw image. Better gradation in the colors is my primary motivation for saying so, but the color fringing suggests uncorrected raw CA to me that the processor is dealing with in the graded video image. I also suspect that the green tinge in the shadows is being introduced by the video grading. My first instinct was to pick A for its visibly better sharpness, but that's a mistake as we don't know what the CA correction and sharpening settings are at, and video is more likely to be sharpened than a raw conversion. More subjectively, A just feels like an Andrew Reid color grade with the slight warmth and the shadow tone contrast. B feels like an ACR conversion, with the understated color tones, well preserved gradations, clean shadow tones, and clinically perfect white balance. Going to feel pretty silly if I'm wrong.

Isn't RAW more likely to have CA?

Look at colours 37 and 31 in image A (reds, 2nd line down). They look like almost the same colour, yes? Now compare them in image B. I think that is what you call bit depth, yes?

Just the feel of the images really, but because of the watercolour chart you can literally see that B has more colours. More dynamic range by the looks of it too. The dead giveaway though is the large flat white area on the tube to the far left of the frame. In image A it has very visible banding, in B it's hard to find any at all. So either the NX1 has amazing video and awful raw stills, or I'm right. I hope I'm right. :unsure:

B is raw A is video

Well, I don't mind the price. I captured a theater performance yesterday and the LX100 was my master shot. First gig with it. I was pretty blown away by it and preferred it to the Canon 5dIII, especially considering the ease of the workflow (realising ML Raw is not even an option here) and how easy it was to rig up (15mm tube clamp under the camera to mount it to rods and you have access to battery chamber). You do have the disadvantage of not having hdmi out and freedom of lenses, no headphone, no microphone in, etc. But I think it's a perfect companion to a GH4. What is there not to like? It pays itself back in a couple of jobs. And being able to shoot in a square format larger than hd is pretty wild for fx shots... The 15 min recording limit is a bit silly of course, but what a great low profile camera this is.

No, that wouldn't make any sense - they would then be cannibalising C100mkII sales. Most people who shoot on C-series cameras are people who have come from SLR shooting. They may have certain features about C-cameras that they like, but if someone's looking to make a camera purchase, and they can buy a 5DmkIV with the same image quality as the C100mkII for $2k less, they're going to go for the 5D. There's nowhere Canon can go in terms of major improvements for video in the sub $5k market that won't cannabalise their C-series lineup. I would expect incremental video updates, and much more substantial updates on the photography side, at least for the <$5k market.

The FZ1000 initially lacked 24p. It has it now with the latest firmware update.   To answer those Qs above...   1. LX100 is better in low light by quite some margin 2. LX100 has the better overall video quality, but they have the same codec and at ISO 200 hard to tell apart 3. LX100 again better picture quality because of larger sensor and it's less noisy. The lens plays a part. The LX100 is simply lovely at wide angle, F1.7 4. Lens quality is similar in terms of sharpness, contrast, etc. But LX100 doesn't flare too well - green splurge 5. Both are "clean" but LX100 is less noisy

The FZ1000 is all about the zoom range. If you need to go really long on the zoom then get the FZ1000. In all other respects the LX100 is better aside from the lack of slow-mo... and a few minor missing menu options. No CineLike D either. LX100 review part 1 http://www.eoshd.com/2014/11/shooting-4k-pocket-camera-exceptional-panasonic-lx100/ FZ1000 review http://www.eoshd.com/2014/11/panasonic-fz1000-review-bargain-4k-super-zoom/

Why dot you take that hard cash buy some used arri lights, red one mx camera or black magic 4k and start shooting dedicate your self to learn story telling cinematography color. Some of the famous directors like Quentin Tarantino Lana and Andy Wachowski Christopher Nolan Akira Kurosawa and Stanley Kubrick to name few never wen to film school Terry Gilliam Film school is for fools. Live and learn how to make films. I didn’t go to film school. I just watched movies in the cinemas. And probably my greater education was actually making films, so that’s all I would ever say: watch movies, get a camera, make a movie. And if you do it enough times, eventually you start learning how films are made.†Quentin Tarantino “Trying to make a feature film yourself with no money is the best film school you can do,†Tarantino told students during a master class at the Cannes Film Festival James Cameron One of the best things that happened to me was that I didn’t go to film school. I used to go down to the USC library and read everything. I’d Xerox stuff. I made my own reference library of doctoral dissertations on optical printing and all that. You will spent shit load of money to get access to film cameras that you can buy now for 5000k on ebay red one mx body goes for 5 to 8k. I wen to film school they told me i can learn it all in 1 years 11k down the hole took me 5 years to pay that off working as a tradesman i dont mind my job at all money is really good but if i could do it all over again i would spend my 11k some place else. School those day is only good for me if you want to make like minded friends that why we have forums like this one. I hear those film schools in USA are dam expensive. like 700 dollars for each class you attend a day. Just my 2 cents

I had a T3i and I changed it for a 70D. Same image quality. I didn't know EOSHD: then I read an Andrew's article about the G6, I bought it and IMMEDIATELY I knew that it was sooooo better then the Canon! Why? 60p for slow motion, focus peaking, freedom to use old Canon lenses (and all the lenses you want) that you can't use on new Canon cameras. After a week I sold all my Canon stuff, I bought some old Canon FD lenses and I had all the features I expected from my Canon. Funny that with 7DII those feature still miss! If you don't want to sell the T3i for a G6 (of for a GH4) just take it and don't "upgrade" to the 70D, because it's not an upgrade. p.s.: here Andrew's article: http://www.eoshd.com/2013/07/panasonic-g6-review-the-gh2-redux/

^ agreed. I recently was researching this stuff and found myself discussing it with folks on Personal-View. Apparently, much of the housings are mass produced between manufacturers, but the glass that gets installed is not necessarily equal. Its a quality control issue, much like many things out of China that are mass produced on a budget. 2 products from different companies can look identical, but not necessarily perform the same. I saw tests from the "cheapo ebay" models on that forum, and they did not perform as well as the RJ. On a whim, I decided to use the contact form to shoot an email out to RJ, and it seems like I got a personal response from Rong Jin himself. He was actually extremely informative and helpful, we started discussing coatings and quality of the glass, and it was pretty clear to me that this is a guy who takes pride in his product. I do believe he puts in a better quality glass element than the others.

andy : there's a big chance they use cheaper glass, which is the only way to make it cheaper. Which might introduce all kinds of artifacts. That's why the Metabones is so expensive : they use the best glass they can get. I didn't buy the cheapest adapter, but paid $30 extra for something that had already been tested/reviewed with pictures to proove it. The only way to find out how this cheaper one does is to buy one and see how it does. But all tests I've seen so far show there's a huge difference and image degradation with the very cheap focal reducers.