Leaderboard

to quote Ricky Gervais... "It's better to create something that others criticise than to create nothing & criticise others".

I buy most of my stuff used. Simply because you get more for your money. And it was during the release of the A7rii and A7sii that I got the idea. Why pay such a premium price for a camera thats going to be worth half within a year? And what can I get for the same amount today?(It was the same reasoning that lead me into my recent film endeavor.) So I found myself looking at used cameras in the €3000 segment. At the top of my list where the Sony F35, but no luck (since I needed a recorder as well). I also looked at URSA, FS700, 1DC etc but none was a perfect match.So I started lurking the Red user forum.There I saw Red Scarlets ready to shoot with accessories for as low as $6000. And when I saw the Red One with everything you need + a set of Rokkinon prime lenses for a crazy low $4000,I knew it would be the one. That particular seller didn’t want to ship to Sweden, but another one did. In less than 24h from leaving Spain, this huge box sat on my floor. (Disclaimer: All IMO of course, totally get why one would rather have an A7rii, its was just my personal thoughts.)

And your contribution is......... ?

Well, since there is basically no useful info on the net about video smart range on these cameras, I made a quick test with my nx500. Basically the exposure is lowered by about 0.4-0.6 stops. So let's say I set shutter to 1/50. With dr on I get iso 250, with dr off I get 400. Now there is something odd about its behaviour. With dr on the clip starts darker but it gradually gains brightness, in about 5 seconds to about the same brightness level as dr off. A bit brighter even I'd say based on my 2 quick tests. But the highlights gain less brightness than the rest. Based on my initial impression you get a bit flatter image, and I haven't noticed any bad side effects. I didn't test in challenging conditions that might create banding (so the question remains if this method is better than reducing contrast or not). This is with nx500 which doesn't have gamma dr. I wouldn't write it off just yet, may be pretty useful for nx500 users.

I haven't seen that till now. Damn. He filtered the shit out of that. Hard to judge image quality.

Need to test that as well, let me get back to you. oh yeah, FC is fast https://youtu.be/4rp-Q7i2nEs

I totally agree with you on this. The high end Sony cams and the old F35 look fantastic, but then I look at things like Bloom's FS5 film "The Wood Carver" and think skin looks like plastic. I try to find other grading styles and see so much brown and orange-looking footage everywhere. Based on so many with such positives when it comes to A7s, FS5 etc.. I'm still holding out hope that it can make an image that would truly make me happy if I spent the money, but just when I think footage looks decent the same film includes stuff that really doesn't.

So this is absolutely not a scientific test, but I was curious how the A7Rii would hold up to my 1DC, which I believe gives a wonderful cinematic image, especially when filming people. Chalk it up to Canon's color science, a great sensor, 4:2:2 color, whatever -- but at current used prices I think the 1DC is a steal (and it takes amazing stills) That said, it's also getting long in the tooth, and the A7Rii was an attractive potential upgrade, especially with 42mp stills, IBIS, and small body that makes gimbal work manageable. But I wondered how it would fare image-wise, especially when it comes to skin tones. I didn't want to use S-Log2 or C-Log, since I don't have any experience grading S-Log2 and I know it can be a challenge, especially on the 8-bit codec. So I shot my 1DC in the neutral profile with sharpness and saturation down, which is what I normally do when not using C-Log. I did my best to match it on the A7Rii -- Andrew's EOSHD Flat settings (Cine4, Black levels up, Detail down, Saturation down a bit) come quite close actually, but I used Pro gamma as Cinema gamma just made the reds look off. Again, this is by no means a scientific or extensive test, and I did very little grading (no LUT, just a single color correction layer in FCPx). And I'm sure someone could do a better job matching the shots, but this at least gives you a sense of the general differences. My big question was whether I could easily get an image out of the A7Rii that could compete with the 1DC without a ton of post work. Both cameras are using the same white balance, ISO, and aperture, although the crop factor is slightly different due to APS-H vs APS-C. I used a Canon 50mm/1.2 on both cameras, and both are handheld with no loupe to stabilize, making it easy to tell which camera is which due to Sony's IBIS. Although I did a number of tests, here's a quick comparison for those interested. This is 4k scaled down to 1080p to make it easier to share: https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/2135/1DC-A7Rii-Test.mov Here's a frame grab from FCPx that's higher-res (1DC is zoomed slightly to match so will look less sharp when viewed at full res): https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/2135/1DC-A7Rii.jpg My personal opinion thus far: The A7Rii can indeed put out a beautiful image when filming people, although it's still not quite as gorgeous as the 1DC. This could be because the 1DC is slightly softer (maybe due to the low-pass filter, so perhaps the A7Sii could be better) and the A7Rii sensor detail just doesn't benefit skin (most photographers end up smoothing skin a bit, I imagine), or due to color, or maybe I just need to spend more time tweaking Sony's insane number of settings. It seems like the 1DC has smoother highlight roll-off, and just gives a touch of softness that benefits people, making it *feel* a bit better to me, even if it's technically inferior. That said, it's close (some might prefer the A7Rii look). And with the A7Rii I gain a lot of great video features the 1DC does not have. Don't know if I'm quite yet ready to retire my Canon and go all in on Sony... but it's tempting and I will be keeping an eye on FS5 firmware updates. Curious to hear from anyone else who has worked with the A7Rii or A7Sii when it comes to filming people.

In the past, I've found the two usually don't go together. But if you search hard enough, a sharp zoom can cut it. First test I shot using the Anamorphic Shop's Focus Module with a Schneider Cinelux MC and a Nikon 35-70 f3.5 on the a7s. ClearImage zoom was set to 1.3 to avoid vignetting across the full focal range (full coverage on MTF it seems). Most of this was shot wide open on the lens. Just sharp enough for my tastes. Hopefully in the coming days I'll get a test out using the 80-200 f2.8. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LeMMkV9s3-U Any other experience with zooms and anamorphic?

The 1D C's 4K in Canon LOG, no sharpening in post, definitely is softer / more organic (delete as appropriate) than the Sony A7S II / A7R II / FS5. Not really a bad thing to be honest.

Just had a look at your comparison. I'm surprised to see how soft the 1DC is on that screen grab. It looks to me like we're seeing motion blur from the shaking of the 1DC while the Sony is much better stabilised. I wouldn't expect the image to be that different in sharpness otherwise. so did you shoot the Sony in Andrew's picture profile? Looks incredibly close to the 1DC in colour. Very impressive.

Agree top looks more like Sony color, bottom looks more like Canon. Additionally, bottom has shallower DOF; full frame vs Super 35. Shooting a live person is the real test- skintones are the toughest to get right. Here I matched the C300 II to the A7S II: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0Ulmgc_a39Q The Canon looked great with little work needed, it took a lot more to get the A7S II to match the Canon (still not perfect, but close enough for a test. C300 II has much more detail). That's the point people are making about Canon/ARRI/Red Dragon-(or later): when time is money, the tools which provide the best quality in the least amount of time will be used, even when the tools cost a bit more up front. Over time, the cost is much less due to less time in post. For hobbyists who only shoot tests, for fun, family, etc., this point doesn't really matter: initial cost is more important. Sony is indeed getting better with color, however Canon is still ahead (as is ARRI and Red), especially in challenging light (multiple and/or gapped spectrum sources). The best way to see this is to shoot with both cameras on the same shoots in the same conditions. The C300 II currently has the best skintones + autofocus of any camera at any price. Would love to see ARRI/Red come out with an even better autofocus/assisted-manual focus system.

If the colours are so 'puke' like, then surely Blondini you will have no problem telling these 1D C and FS5 4K frames apart...

Yup, if only the perfect all in one could be invented soon. Maybe CES 2016 In the meantime, If anybody that haven't experienced Red Raw, here is a clip. Its 4.5K in R28. So pretty big compared to the smaller HD files. And imo pretty cool for the highest compression. You can use Resolve but if you have Final Cut I sugest installing the free plugin from Reds web page. Then you will find the raw settings under the info tab of the clip on your timeline. I have so far used that for correcting or just switching the Raw to Log. The graded with what ever like Color Finalle, etc. http://www.filedropper.com/a165c0190101j8rdc

Mattias i love you videos man and you voice one of the best in you tube so dam relaxing So now with red mx are we gonna see some serious production.

At least (until things change) you are not the only one. I suspect the problem with YouTube is that their goal is to service all platforms at all connection speeds at all times. Consistent high quality playback is always the trade off until the whole world has sufficient affordable bandwidth to support HD/4K streams on billions of devices. Just as they do, I suspect some people will then complain that they can't view 16k HDR video on our watches. Current Codec developments can only improve web video presentation so much, the ultimate fix is with speed of connection and its lowering of cost for mass implementation. I'm old enough to remember in 1999 having to wait 30mins+ for a 480x320 QuickTime download of the Phantom Menace trailer on an average speed dial-up modem. 6 years before YouTube even existed - so don't forget how good we have it now, back then there was no macro blocking...it was massive blocking.

Catch-22: upload to Vimeo, no one discovers it. Upload to YouTube, tons of views. These aren't corporate or business gigs. They're creative works I do mostly for fun versus the small sum I ask for. I appreciate the helpful comments but it's not a fixable situation until iOS and Android get delivered VP9. I'm sure eventually the codec will be rolled out everywhere. Just needed to vent. It's just a shame to see a natural, contrast-y, out of focus background macroblock to shit because the h.264 encoder sucks so bad at YouTube.

Is there a warp stabilizer going on in some of the shots, or is that rolling shutter, or am I just too tired and not seeing things straight? Anyway, awesome test. I just bought the Tokina 28-70, and expect good results from it. Will post when it arrives and I get the chance to actually test.

I guess you get what you pay for. (i.e nothing) If a client is embedding YT videos onto their site, or just sending out links to YT via links I'd guess they would not normally rank video presentation quality as a top priority, otherwise they would likely host their own preferred quality compressed video and player onto their own html5 site - or at least link to a embedded Vimeo link that at least has a more attractive/ custom player and non invasive pop up advertising. saying that, it's possible to create nice presentations on YT for some projects & companies and they are currently offering some very interesting 360 VR support, as well as very high resolution playback support. But when it comes to playback quality experience, it's almost always dependant on the connection speed to the viewer. YT only defaults to HD playback when the connection is fast enough( and often not by default even if it is fast enough), otherwise it will auto detect a lower (sometimes drastically low) quality stream to fulfil playback on everything from mobile phone to desktop. That is why sometimes it is good to use YT as a good backup way of promoting video, but better to prioritise and promote the hyperlink to the hosted video page on the clients site, or a Vimeo alternative upload to the Vimeo version may often yield better playback results - as it is less worried about loading fast on weak mobile connections, bit more likely to prioritise maintaining quality on playback...not auto switching to 360p when internet strength is weak. if your client is complaining about how the video looks, maybe it's time to ask them to think about paying for hosting video on their own dedicated web space - where compression can be controlled/minimised or at least try a plus or pro Vimeo account as an alternate sharing platform.

Hi guys, the magic lantern workflow on the 5D does seem a lot of extra hassle even tho the images are great. In Ireland they hold their value as well. I actually owned a BMPC and sort of regret selling it, I had it with the original firmware and had to return it with some dead pixels, plus the poor screen and battery life was a bit of a pain. Once it is rigged up it works fine but I did not invest in it, so moved it on. I loved the prores files it produced and sometimes used raw... great for grading but for the way I work I prefer having a cam that can shoot top stills and video plus good erogonimcs. Thats why the NX1 is tuning my head and also I am on a tight budget. If cash was not to much of a concern I would probably looking at one of the sonys... A7r II, full frame, 42mp and IS looks the business. As mentioned none of the cameras are perfect and a bit of talent can make any of them shine. We are in lucky times that there are good options for any budget, in reality all the camera mentioned are dam good. The GH4 I have is cool but I do like some of the footage I am seeing coming from the samsung.

Optically I love 'em. I find them sharp wide open. Too bad they're so old DXO doesn't have any reviews. Well, one of the Bourne films were shot on rehoused copies, so they must be good. So I guess if you don't mind them being used (pretty sure they've been out of production for a long while,) they're great lenses. My only two niggles are: I sometimes struggle with the 28-70mm to create shallow depth of field. I don't think it's a reasonable complaint, but it's how I feel. (The Sigma 18-35mm f1.8 has really spoiled me.)The 80-200mm is a beast to rig and has a pretty long minimum focus distance: 5ft/1.5m.

Vindication! I thought the 5 reasons video looked better than the Last Test, but I doubted myself because I worried it might have just been knowing it was shot on Red that made it look better in the second video! Matt (I'm the cheeky chap on YouTube who said the first one looked like 8bit h264 by the way).

Wow, I love it ! This complete package for this price, it was a really good offer. Enjoy with your new toys

Mattias Red One was a great camera ... upgraded from a Sony EX1r and loved the organic image ... moved up to the EPIC and was less pleased as it seemed a bit sterile. I know you will make it sing. Only clip I have left ... https://vimeo.com/123791417 Password : daysend Enjoy it ... blast from the past. Bob

When writing plugins for PP you see just how ancient their software is. Apple wrote FCPX from scratch (perhaps with some bits from iMovie ;)), whereas PP's architecture dates back to the time of FCP with the recent Mercury engine tacked on. It bought them some time with 1080p, however it shows its limitations with 4K. While FCPX has limitations and gotchas different from PP, basic editing and grading of 4K footage is fast and fluid which helps the creative process. A 4K monitor should not slow a system down with a decent GPU rendering 1080p. Rendering or monitoring 4K is another story- depends on the software.

I Bought one and sold one last year camera is awesome all the shooting options but he forgot to mention that it take up to 96 seconds for it to power up it eats batteries power for breakfast no to mention space on HD. i know camera is a professional and PL mount now you need Pl lenses in my case i cant rent every time i like to shoot or experiment i got family to feed I was thinking i can get use my Yashica lenses well on top of 10k i spend on camera i was looking for another $2350 for 2 mounts that will enable me to use my yashica lenses pretty much anything for that camera from a screw to extra battery or is above 500 dollars. And lets not forget the weight of the camera. Felling that i got from the camera that i head for entire 2 months is that its a 2 man job to operate i was always asking my wife to hold this hold that. Then i went to shoot outside charge the batteries got a Zeiss Compact Prime 35mm 300$ a day by the time camera power up one batteries was half gone i got 22 min of shooting and 36 minutes in standby mode. Then wanted to buy bigger battery but 450 US dollars that is 620 Canadian it just adds up. And lets not foget you nedto to spend some money on a HD space for your computer or a brand new computers since you are working with red raw its fine to play with one file or one shoot but wen you start editing short films or music videos in 4.5k or even HD it cost money. So what did i buy with 10k a color correcting station (something like in that pic) beefy computer BMPCC, lights, glidecam400 kowa B&H davinci resolve. My main goal is the learning the art. I know that MX shoot nice pictures but if i cant view those images properly on a dedicated monitor or grade them and see what i am doing wrong i might as well get a grading station and BMPCC which shoots raw and i can see exactly what i am doing with color and scopes. BMPCC is not MX but its dam close when it comes to image and what you can do with it. But if everything goes according to plan next year purchase will be red scarlet camera they go for for abut 7k to 10k. but still i am jealous that he has red mx its a great camera for right person just not for me

Works well! One that is on my list to try is the Pentax "stack of primes" 35-105 f3.5. If it works decent, it might just stay on my Kowa/Rangefinder. It always looks best nearer to f4 anyway, on S35/APSC, 35mm is wider even than I can go by a little bit, and 100mm should me more than enough long end. It's an early zoom lens so no crazy complex optics, so I'm thinking it might work ok.

Really nice. How are you focusing during the zoom?

I love the way the scene with pets looks.

congratulations on your purchase andrew looking forward to hearing more about it!! ...i think this is a fun discussion~! cuz ykno, if we ALL agreed on this stuff 100% and we ALLLL shot with the SAME CAMERA...... well, how boring would that be~?! cheers guys~!!

I think that was a pretty successful experiment. You zoomed in and out while maintaining focus and preserved that great anamorphic feel. Don't forget, the few front anamorphic zooms out there from Hawk and Panavision are rare and incredibly expensive. This set-up must've cost what a Hawk 45-90mm costs for a single rental day.

Ha! Welcome to the darkside. I own an FS7 and a GH4. They are my workhorses. I expect to replace both with an FS5 in 2016 for 80% of my work. I travel internationally to places where small kit is essential. Can't wait. *I also own an A7S II which has yet to earn my trust. ** the GH4 is the best DSLR since the 5D2. The only reason I haven't already bought an FS5 is in case a GH5 suddenly appears on the horizon.....

Simple Formula: Original ratio x anamorphic extension rate = New ratio So 16:9 with 2x=32/9

Hello everyone. I just purchase my first anamorphic lens, and I need help with the best base lens for the job. First here is my gear: - Schneider Kreuznach 2x anamorphic lens - VidAtlantic adaptor -Diopter -Nikon d750 Notice I havent included a base lens. Since the d750 shoots in fx or dx modes, I am torn between a 50mm lens purchase vs a 85mm lens purchase. Furthermore, whenever I see these anamorphic setups, the base lens always seems to be an older model (I.e. manual focus and aperture control). Is there any reason the newest models couldn't be used? Thanks in advance for your assistance. P.S. I will be doing photography as well as film with this setup.

When selecting a taking lens for an anamorph it's worth researching what the original taking lens would have been. and if there are various options you want to go for the middle focal length or the one the lenses are typically used on. So researching your cinelux 2x anamorphic lens you'll see that there are many focal length primes available for projection. as far as I can see, the gold cinelux 2x anamorphics could be paired with anything from 42.5mm/2 up to 100mm/2 from a range of primes. They'll have therefore designed the lens to perform best at the mid point. =70mm, (or they may have been designed to work best with a specific focal length to project from a certain distance onto a certain size screen.) However lets assume they went with the most obvious solution - design for 70mm primes with enough performance to cater for a different focal length. So lets say the best performance can be had from the cinelux at 70mm/f2 on s35mm (aps-c for simplicity) on full frame to match the performance closely you'll want a 100mm/2.8 on full frame. So assuming you went with something close to a 70mm/2 as a typical lens it would mean you could get away with using it in aps-c for optimal IQ or when used on full frame you could close down to 70/2.8 and get similar fov and perfomance to that you would expect from the schneider 42.5mm/2 prime (which would be considered 'within spec' by the schneider techs in terms of performance. Performance is always better from projection anamorphics with double gauss designs (all of the schneider projection lenses are of this design). I think the closest 'full frame capable' lens that is affordable and gets close to the optimal 70mm/2 focal length, while also being a double gauss design is a medium format 80/2.8 like a biometar 80/2.8. You will find 75mm/2 lenses which closely match the criteria but they're rare and often made by collectable brands. If you can live with moderate vignette on full frame then go with a late helios 44 - a helios 44-3 or later will have multi coatings that match the coatings on the cinelux very well. aps-c with the helios 44-3 will deliver outstanding results only slightly less refined than my estimated optimal 70mm FL this makes performance even more important since viewers tend to need more refined in focus areas when you're shooting stills. I still think the helios 44-3 is a superb option and only slightly out of optimal spec for aps-c. and only slightly pushing things on the wide end. however the drop in iq will be at the edges anyway and will likely be a desirable aesthetic (particularly for portraits)

Uh oh! John Franklin Rosevelt has come forward with a accusation against the filmmaker of insanity! Insanity, my dear community. Let's shut this thread down immediately before it gets out of hand! Need to go back to hiding in the wood works! A member of 34 pluses and 153 posts and One star. A golden beautiful star. Gotta check how the camera looks above 3200 ASA because that's what we all test - that's the main way we are shooting - in the dark. With no light - no ambiant light. Never once have any of us shot in the daylight or, heaven forbid, shot a scene at night using lights! Oh my, okay, on it right away!