Leaderboard

4k content will drive sales of 4k TVs, monitors, mobile devices. Do Sony, Samsung and Panasonic make any of this hardware? If so it makes perfect sense to drive sales by providing content creators with affordable ways to produce content. Elementary my dear Watson.

Hi guys! Long time since I last posted here! OK, Last month Burbuja Films and I presented Midnight Sun, a documentary about the prolific music scene in Finland, Norway and Sweden. Let's try to embed the trailer right here: I filmed the thing last summer during a two month hitch-hiking trip in these countries. Alone. For the journey, bands day to day and interviews I used the RX100 mk2, and for the music videos the BMPCC with c-mount primes. I also had a zoom h1 for audio. I was forced to use this tiny cameras as I was travelling with just one bag, but I also realised that sometimes the smaller the better, specially in this kind of docus where I needed the people to feel comfortable and act natural in front of the camera. I just wanted to let you guys know that EOSHD was a huge source of inspiration it terms of which gear to choose for the job. I'm really happy with the performance of these two tiny cameras -they never let me down in the two months of production and we think the result is fantastic, considering the low-budget-ish nature of our project. Now, the documentary is touring in festivals all over the world and we hope people enjoy watching it. Thanks for helping me! Javi.

Ebrahim- I'll bite here and go a little further on Maxotics' point. No matter what algorithm you use to downscale, it's impossible to preserve data. A better descriptor would be transformation vs preservation, from one facsimile of reality to another smaller one. By using different algorithms to downsample, you aren't getting better accuracy, you're getting different results, which are more like creative choices. Some algos like Lanczos look sharper when resizing images because they are keeping areas of transition in contrast (edges) sharper than say Cubic, through iteration. Edges are how we see shapes, but that's not a more accurate method, it's just sharper looking. There are even sharper algos than Lanczos if that's what you're looking for, but the only way to really preserve data is to keep the source 4k files. Beyond that, choices with reformatting are subjective. For me recently, I needed to stick with Cubic when reformatting 4k because I was matching HD alexa background plates, it's also fast. But nuke's help page on their available reformatting algos is pretty useful, check it out. http://help.thefoundry.co.uk/nuke/9.0/Default.html#comp_environment/transforming_elements/filtering_algorithm_2d.html?Highlight=Lanczos

​and im 70% sure the both of you don't understand how percentage works.

Impressive on paper, but I see no skintones in the demo.

​100% absolute positivity this will not happen with A7s II........ At most A7s may do 120fps at 1080p, it is quite insane to even think they can get 60fps at 4k when we will be lucky to have it at 24/30.

Hi Ebrahim. Agree with wither mercer, but just to have fun, I'll argue you're not over-thinking it enough Is an image a collection of perfect data points? If each pixel recorded the color and saturation perfectly do you end up with a perfect image? I'll argue that the answer is 'no' because no matter how well a pixel records data there is space between each pixel that does NOT record data. A digital image is really black canvas populated with color dots that never touch each other. What this means is that if you image a field of tall grass there will be parts of the small grass blades that, when their light makes its way through the optics, fall on dead space on the sensor. This is true, AFAIK, with every sensor made and it doesn't matter how high the resolution 1K or 4K. Obviously, the higher the resolution, the less noticeable this problem. If a blade of grass "breaks apart" so to speak, between the pixels of your 4K image, downscaling cannot create "data" information that isn't there. Just like when your image processing system (camera or post) must deal with it (aliasing) with the original image, the downscaler must deal with it when combining the larger set of pixels into a smaller. The chief difference between all these algorithms, AFAIK, is how many pixels around the hypothetical center pixel the software looks at to determine the best value (though much of it is subjective, some will like one algo, others, another). Take the blade of grass. If the algo only look at the pixels above, it would never see the disconnect between the pixel to the left. An algo that looks at 16 pixels, say, to calculate 1 pixel, can often do it better than 4 pixels because it can "see" more of the image and make a good decision about what to create. The more pixels the algo looks at, the better, in my experience. Though, like Mercer says, this isn't a problem that yields significant improvement in most footage. So my answer to your question is that running your footage through the most sophisticated algorithm before you edit in your NLE should deliver the best results. Most likely, the NLE will be sluggish if running it real time (which is why you would process it before). For example, Amaze is a great debayering algorithm, but I doubt most PCs can use it rendering RAW in real time. Hope this makes sense!

I finally finished the first of the anamorphic video reviews I set out to do a few months ago. The next ones won't take as long! I present you the mighty Iscorama 54. Please let me know what you think of it, what worked and what could be improved, which lenses would you like reviewed and if you thought of it as useful or just more of the same of what we have around the web. ANAMORPHIC ON A BUDGET - ISCORAMA 54. http://www.tferradans.com/blog/?p=7541 If you haven't watched/read my ground rules for the video reviews yet, check my other post! ANAMORPHIC VIDEO REVIEWS - GROUND RULES​ http://www.tferradans.com/blog/?p=7508

​ You should convert your GoPro footage to ProRes, very bad compression artifacts letting me know you are editing off of the internal H.264. Yes this will create massive files, but it will make your footage look that much better. H.264 is NOT an editing codec even though many people make that mistake. This is one main reason why shooting on RED,ARRI,BLACK MAGIC, etc the internal codec is of much higher quality but even still 99% of the time if it's not recorded in ProRes it's god to convert to it or other similar codecs if you're in "PC" world. *Color balance looks pretty close, GoPro footage just needs more contrast. Also I agree that you should shoot in medium field of view mode for these types of specific shoots. I usually use the Superview when doing aerials as I love the slight "fisheye" effect.

Looks great. Really pleasing, filmic, and interesting visuals. Congrats! Is this meant to be a profile on this person or the temple? Felt more like the former. Also, would have helped to use sounds/music of the temple, I didnt quite feel the ambience. Not too sure about the music either.

This test shows some of the signature SLR Magic lens characteristics I have grown to dislike. 1. Reminiscent of the Century 16:9 adaptors: The Image quality in general looks degraded. The image lacks any tack sharpness on the in focus areas, even at f4. This couldnt be further away from what I'd expect from a frame size only slightly bigger than s16mm, acquiring 4k. I can live with a lack of sharpness if there is a lot of defocus blur - since the ratio would make the slightly soft infocus areas appear sharper. The unpleasant blue/orange fringing on contrasty transitions (even at f4) is really hitting hard on the look and also making the image feel like it's had some type of 1980's filter applied. I hate being harsh on people's investments, but it prompts me to suggest others shooting on gh4 4k mode to consider retrying the century 16:9 adaptors (Which are very cheap now), and since the sensor area from the gh4 is so small I'm almost certain the century will fulfil the needs of those investing 3 times the price on these new slr magic items. https://vimeo.com/47971206 this was the century 16:9 with a 28mm lens on the old nex5n. considering how wide i was going and how behind the nex5n is comapred to the gh4, as well as a sensor almost twice the area, the results are pretty good. i imagine a super fast m4/3 voigtlander, the century and a gh4 would deliver awesome things.

​ For landscape, low end anamorphics are the worst choice. Even the best wide anamorphics will never match a basic wide angle spherical lens. Gone are the days when anamorphic selection is to obtain greater resolution. shooting on 16:9 mode with a high end wide lens and cropping will result in an overall better image for when dof characteristics are unimportant. Anamorphic landscape shots where all is in focus gains no resolution or aesthetic advantage Barrel distortion is also an undesirable quality for landscape shots.

Congratulations, very nice images and assembly. What lenses did you use?

Congrats on the anamorphic lens! I had been wondering about that too, but after some searching I found an earlier Helios (the 44, not the 44-2) on eBay in great shape with a gorgeous golden coating. My understanding is that there were a lot of different 44-2's manufactured over many years, some may have the same coating. But keep an eye out for the original 44 too. Cheers, -Bold

OK, I don't quite get the excitement here and on other forums. Isn't NX1 at $1,500 already doing much of what a7RII is doing at $3,200? Yes, a7RII has stuff like log and higher MP stills, but then only NX1 has 120fps 1080p. I take it the jubilation is over FF vs Super 35? Doesn't quite seem worth the over 2x price difference, especially for video. I'm sure there's more, can't wait to see hands-on reviews.

This made me rethink if I should get the NX1 or not, but the price is out of my range, I could get it for 2k, but 3,2k is way too steep, so for now and the next few years, im sticking with the NX1 which is still one of the best choices for video for the price. I just would have loved the FF for stills.

​The tests Tony did were shot with well-lit subjects and most examples people showcase also feature lit or moderately lit scenes. I think where the large photosites really come into play is when you have very very very low light such as a crowd at a concert at nighttime, some wedding venues, documentary shooting at night, etc. Having used the A7s, I have yet to see anything that shoots that clean with that little amount of light. When scaled down , high-megapixel cameras can "combine" pixels which helps to reduce the appearance of noise but if those pixels are really noisy to begin with, they aren't going to combine into something clean. I could be wrong since I don't have the cameras but I'd imagine the next version of the A7s will do better in true low-light compared to the higher resolution A7rII

I agree the difference of 0.07 is not such a big deal, but imo the 'normal' EF - MFT Speed Booster is already a great product. This just makes it better. The difference is more relevant for wide lenses. Because you now get the same crop factor as any aps-c camera, you can use all lenses 'as intended'. The Sigma 18-35mm for example. With the 0,71x Speed Booster, you get a 31-60mm equivalent (4K UHD), with the 0,64x you get the 28-55mm equivalent. 28mm vs 31mm is noticeable. It's not only about subject distance, but about a certain look and perspective. On top of that, you'll get an extra 1/3 stop of light. It's not much more expensive than the 0,71x SB either. So, that's what makes me - as a GH4 owner - excited. Thanks Brian!

​Your're correct: the Speed Booster XL is really a dedicated GH4 focal reducer. The design is very similar to the BMCC version, but I squeezed out a bit more than a millimeter of extra space to clear the GH4 shutter, and, as you surmised, optimized for the thicker filter stack. In addition, the coverage was enlarged to encompass the entire m43 image area compared to the smaller BMCC sensor. However, I tuned the performance to be really good over the reduced area Cinema-4k mode of the GH4. High optical performance at extreme apertures are what this new Speed Booster is all about. Metabones seems to be having technical difficulties getting the full press release up on their website, so I'll show the data here. As you can see from the MTF curves, even at f/0.8 the contrast and resolution are extremely high out to an image height of 8,7mm, which corresponds to the Cinema-4k mode image circle diameter of 17.4mm. Beyond that point the performance drops gradually to the corners of fullframe m4/3, but is still pretty good.

Look here: http://www.ebay.com/itm/Kipon-Auto-Focus-AF-Adapter-for-EOS-EF-Lens-to-Micro-Four-Thirds-M4-3-MFT-Camera-/281711173010?pt=LH_DefaultDomain_0&hash=item41974b5d92 The first one is it ? Panasonic should take note. The only reason many people are considering those is in part thanks to no native lenses with IS. For me the idea of using a 300 f4L IS on a GH4 does not sound optimal. BUT for certain nature shooting ideas it might be a decent solution. The weight savings from native lenses would be highly appreciated. EDIT. seems to me that that ebay store that Linked are selling PRE orders.

If you're willing to consider a USB 3 drive, take a look at this bad boy: http://www.amazon.com/Seagate-Backup-Portable-External-STDA4000100/dp/B00HXAV0X6 It's actually two drives crammed into a RAID 0, crammed into a single bus powered enclosure. 4 TB, and I'm seeing it deliver in excess of 230 MB/s (yes, megabytes) per second in real world file transfers. That's SSD level sequential (but not random) performance. Comfortably fast enough to edit on! They include a free NTFS driver (Paragon) for Mac which works extremely well. And just look at that price. Really cannot recommend these highly enough.