Leaderboard

I've had a lot of Nikkors over the years. I stated getting them 5 years ago now when working with the t2i. I've settled into a nice collection of AIS versions that is my main lens set (24/2,35/1.4, 50/1.2, 55/2.8, 85/1.4, 105/1.8, 135/2.8 E, 200/4) I love them and don't plan on getting rid of them, merely expanding in the right places, but recently I've really been more into the Canon FD lenses on my nx1. I have the 24/2.8 and just a 50/1.8 but I love how they look on the nx1. I'd keep your FD set just to have as a complete set, then maybe buy some 50mm lenses of different brands. If you find a brand that you really like, go from there.

I'm shooting a music video with V Log next weekend and I'm stoked on getting some good looking results out there. Here is another good looking landscape video I saw on Vimeo with V Log 10 bit:

I'm talking about color science in general, not the A7S II specifically. My work is mainly creative features, docs, shorts, and music videos, where I have don't have lightning-fast deadlines to meet. In those conditions, I've gotten much nicer results from beefier color spaces like Blackmagic's than Canon's very saccharine, Crayola look. Even with weddings, you generally have a couple months to deliver, and between Filmconvert, Speedlooks, and Magic Bullet, finding a decent look is within anyone's reach. If not, I doubt the camera is the problem.

I think the zeiss milvus are probably better than the sigma art, but for the money, the sigma's are great lenses. Some have said that the 18-35mm is one of the best zoom lenses ever made. My friend just bought the 30mm 1.4 and I shot a couple clips with it yesterday, and it looked good. I think Kendy Ty shoots only with that lens... But the older version. Look into the xeen lenses too, supposed to be very nice. There's also a member here, Rich, who is the owner of Dog Schidt Optics and he has some beautiful lenses he has repurposed for reasonable prices.

http://menexmachina.blogspot.com/2018/07/a-story-about-4k-xavc-s-premiere-and.html

In case anyone is interested, I thought I'd share this Kickstarter project: https://www.kickstarter.com/projects/2044759634/hercules-the-worlds-smallest-camera-motion-control?ref=email

I'm totally sold on the music box cylinder idea.

Not exactly. If you keep a hard drive disconnected and in cold storage, the data on the discs should last a very long time, as should the mechanical components. No one knows for sure how long a hard drive will last in this scenario, as we have not yet reached the point of failure in such a case. With a stored, disconnected drive, I would imagine that the capacitors in the hard drive's circuitry will go bad sooner than a breakdown in the mechanics or with the info on the disk. Those tapes are digital, not analog. And that tape suffers the same deterioration problems as regular audio tape -- the magnetic layer separates/flakes-off the base layer as the tape ages. By the way, there used to be countless "digital/analog" computer tape systems. I still have one. The computer encodes digital files into analog audio beeps/tones (similar to modems) which can be recorded almost any audio tape recorder. That system is different than the digital tape system that you mention. With film, the image/dyes still progressively fade during that 100+ years (and the base becomes more and more brittle). And, again, film cannot be copied without generational loss. Actually, there exists digital media that have already lasted for centuries (and that still work!). Music boxes using pins and spaces on cylinders (as their digital "ones" and "zeros") first appeared in the 1200s. By 1800, music boxes using metal disks (with holes and lack of holes) started to appear and became popular in that century. Metal discs from the 1800s are still being played by enthusiasts today, and they sound exactly as they did in the 1800s. So, digital mediums can last for a very long time and not suffer any degradation of quality. (It is also kind of cool that digital audio recording existed centuries prior to the arrival of analog audio recording.) Certainly, it would be cumbersome and inefficient to try to encode video files to music box cylinders and disks. On the other hand, there exist long-lasting digital media that can do so compactly and efficiently. The Millenniata disk is expected to keep digital data up to 1000 years, as it uses microscopic engraved pits to record data, instead of dyes that can fade. Likewise, "pressed" CDs/DVDs use physical pits to store data, in contrast to common "burned" CDs/DVDs which use dyes. Pressed disks are projected to last up to 300 years. Of course, the average eoshd.com poster won't have a disk press connected to their laptop. but some "burnt" optical disks have stable dyes that are estimated to last 100-250 years. And again, it is difficult to know how long a hard drive will last stored and disconnected. However, it is immaterial that all of these digital mediums have a superior lifespan to film, merely due to two facts: 1. digital files can be repeatedly copied with absolutely no generational loss; 2. there is no automatic, progressive fading/degradation of the information as a digital file sits in storage. These two abilities allow digital files to last forever exactly as they were originally. If the same could be done with film, then it could last forever, too.

As much as I miss shooting 35 on my beloved Arri, what people tend to conveniently forget is the horrific ecological impact that film stock manufacture/development has. Having previously worked at Kodak processing plant I can remember it was pretty disgusting to see how much waste and pollution was caused by photochemical processing. Quality of 35mm film is still very relevant, and film format is still the gold standard but unless processing/transfer/print costs can be swallowed by production - shooting film has now become well out of reach to the average lower budget or indie production, when compared to digital media costs. sadly it has become economically unviable for the 'little guy' on his own who wants to shoot indie features on 35mm film. Of course it CAN be done, but sadly - these days you need a damn good reason (in most cases) to justify shooting film over digital to a producer. Strangely, people seem to get nervous around 100+ year technology of analogue capture and the different costs that can be incurred over digital capture. The reality of course is that film is still the most reliable form of archival format. It's not always a huge difference in shooting cost when for short form or commercial projects - but if wanting to shoot 35mm features, generally it is well out of reach for many projects to justify costs and over digital to budget. (I consider film formats sub 35mm as more aesthetic choices these days, not technical rivals to digital) Does not make me happy one bit to say, but film has started to become an elitist format (as it kind of should be). The Cost implications in shooting anything higher than S16 for any project of long form length has become very expensive when compared to digital. Ultimately budget often dictates format, regardless of the quality benefits of shooting larger gauge film over digital.

My sweet fantastic daughter on the beach this morning : A7SII SLOG 3 Gammut.cine Tiffen VND 23.976 fps 1/50 1600 isos Sigma 35mm 1.4 Art closed to F/2 to avoid vignetting Graded In Resolve in almost 1 minute... Some macro blocking due to the VLC grab compression setting Don't think we have plastic skin tones right here. Pretty ok with this camera... I have some great results in almost all domains compared to a 5DIII. Maybe not a good enough camera for stills i'm ok. Not enough reactive and too small size (12MP). In fact i'm very impressed with this camera. It is far from perfect but it is a pleasure to use SLOG3 on a consumer camera like this. It has its limitations with 8 bits but i'm ok with that, i'm not using it as if it were a 12 bits RAW camera... It sure has limitations, as the most annoying is the yellow spots when you push too far the blacks... but anyway, this is a consumer camera, UHD, image stabilisation, fantastic dynamic range, saving data on SD card, and powered by an Anker astro E7 power bank that lasts more than 12 hours for 45 euros... directly connected to the USB port... WHAT ELSE ? In serious jobs, with good controlled lights, i'm sure an A7SII or an URSA mini would both do the job right... And nobody would still see a big difference... but in bad conditions, the A7SII is here while others are not... My BMCC and BMPCC are great tools even in the dark as it merely sees what my eye can see, and noise is not really a problem when you don't push blacks... But when i compare BMPCC and BMCC to the A7SII... i feel more comfortable with the A7SII even if its colors are less manageable... In fact i've just done some tests by night and poorly lit places, and if you control every shot by double checking the color temperature and the exposure, the A7SII is fantastic... Just ETTR every time and you have always good results... In post, gamma, lift and contrast have to be well controlled with waveform graphic. By now i'm pretty satisfied from what i can get with this camera, tests in the beginning have been hard, coming from 5DIII RAW, but now i can see how Sony functions with this little camera... More tests to come soon as i'll use it as an A-cam for a project Wednesday.

You just can't compare Canon FD to Nikon ai-s to Contax Zeiss to Leica R etc... You've got to really know what kind of look you want & then go from there. Nikon Ai-s lenses are lovely & it makes absolutely no difference which way the focus ring turns - you get used to it. Here's a useful link that rates the different Nikon Lenses & he's always spot on with his analysis - the fastest ones aren't always the best. The 2nd link is a serial number link that helps you to know which one you're looking at when buying: http://www.naturfotograf.com/lens_surv.html#rating http://www.photosynthesis.co.nz/nikon/serialno.html Nikon Ai-s are great & after the Russains, they are my favourite & I will be buying the whole set at some point. I find that i'm looking for how a lens renders the background areas, not just wide open but throughout the range - that's the real test for me, if its ugly at f4/5.6 then I just don't bother. You've got to remember that most lenses don't render their optimum capabilities wide open, especially if they're fast f1.2s. As far as Nikon goes the 50mm f1.2 isn't better wide open than the f1.4 & I prefer the f1.8! From your photos, it looks as if you're wanting a low contrast lens set. I think some of the lenses with older coatings will suit you better, especially those with a Gold-ish tint - be warned these will flare like crazy.

How do you plan on developing film? The videos I have seen look like a huge pain in the ass with giant cilinders and gallons of developer,etc... ($$$). And if scanning a single medium format negative already is a pain in the ass, I can't imagine how you would scan kilometers of film.

The grass is always greener... You have a perfect set, keep it. The nikkor 50 1.2 isn`t that great either, it only really shines on people (close ups). Maybe I have a bad copy... The 85 1.2 has no competition.

I own the the Inspire and it's like having a tripod sitting in the sky...this will be another tool to add to your kit and used carefully could do amazing things in the right place...as with so much gear will it be perfect....no...but the story will really be, how good is your film, commercial, short narrative piece etc.....and if that is together, the audience will not give a hoot whether the Iphone footage looks better. All these clips were thrown together to make it appear like a chimp could use this, which is why it looks bad...but for someone taking the time...as with anything you shoot, you could get great results and at $269, for me this handle is a no-brainer...

Looks great. The NX500 is the same way. I have done extensive testing and contrast at default 0 is the best. Tweaking contrast too much messes up the colors... At least to my eye. I tick saturation down to -4 and sharpness dialed all the way. Have you tried EditReady? I think it does a pretty good job. Of course I convert to 1080p prores. I think it gives the footage a little more weight. Black pro must is a good idea... Hmm. Anyway, your shots look wicked. You should make a video showing your coloring workflow.

Thanks Aaron, means a lot coming from you... I love your work. This color correction/grading thing is really new to me. I was using a t2i and eos-m for years... Shooting Prolost Neutral, most of the time, a lens would usually create the "look" I was going for. But the NX500 is a different beast altogether. Even though it's a consumer camera like the rebel line, it handles color entirely differently. Anyway, thanks for looking and the tip!!!

Regraded to match cameras better: The A7S II was sharpened in post (Sharpen filter @ 64) and color/brightness was matched a little better to the C300 II. There's still more detail in the C300 II, though that's to be expected at 4x the data rate and initial compression methods (410 Mbps ALL-I vs. 100Mbps IPB). The Sony 24-240 is a decently sharp lens, and the only lens I have on hand that can autofocus in fullframe 4K (the Sony 18-200 is crop mode only). We have two Canon 24-105 F4L's, however the Sony can't autofocus it and it's not a super sharp lens. Sony has really improved the color on the A7S II vs. the A7S. The red/magenta around my eyes is from some kind of allergy after our air-conditioning was worked on in my day-job's office (dust/chemicals or both). The C300 II's color is excellent, and the extra detail and low rolling shutter will come in handy. Built-in 24-bit pro audio is also helpful for fast shooting (A7S II has an add-on for XLR+Phantom power, might take a look at it, though we'll probably use wireless lavs with the A7S II location shoots). The C300 II's autofocus is on another level- a truly groundbreaking new feature: the killer app for this camera. This level of autofocus will be standard someday (and even better). For now, no one else has it. Why compare these two cameras? I work with cameras in my day job (artificial intelligence camera systems), and comparisons are always fun and can be helpful in understanding quality. We can confidently use the A7S II as a B-cam and cut between the two cameras without having to spend too much time in post matching them. With only evenings and weekends to shoot, we're looking to speed up production and these two cameras will allow us to shoot and edit fast.

Funny, when I had the 7D I always had to tweak the colors. Same happened with 5D files. I find Canon's colors so unnatural, in fact I find them too saturated and too contrasty. I enjoy Sony's color much better.

Hahaha ... Panasonic could make a short film on this. It's like that scene from Superman (the Christopher Reeves one), where the guy selling the Leaning Tower of Pisa breaks his pieces, when he realises that Superman has brought the tower back to its leaning position, after straightening it before: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iMOnOjASyKk

It's worth pointing out that XAVC-L is still better than XAVC-S of the a7s. While it seems obvious now, I didn't exactly realize that until watching the presentation. I think Alistair does a pretty good job of explaining what this camera is, and more importantly, what it isn't.

Thats unfortunate. You should rent one and try it again with the Ninja Blade. IMO it's worth every penny.

Superb video. starts to become a bit of a goldmine for concise information about s-log/cine/rec709 - and backing up already known information.