Leaderboard

believe me i know. I've been doing exactly that for years. i understand the advantages and disadvantages. full frame is fun and I enjoy shooting in it, but in this case, I *want* a super35 (1.5x) sensor digital cinema camera to shoot films with. I want that because that's the standard I'm used to for motion pictures. besides, I don't like using a focal reducer with my vintage lenses because they exacerbate blooming, CA, and soft corners for apertures wider than f/2.8, which negates the advantage of the metabones' extra stop, or more. fortunately, I won't need that extra stop with a native 2500 ISO (providing it's just as clean as 800 which we have yet to see from the EVA1). and last, I have the 5D3/MLRAW option for when I want the full frame look (which I'm also a fan of for the right project). side note: I used to own a good bit of MFT lenses when I was an AF100 and then GH4 owner. always found them a little too small to operate with my big bear paws. the contax zeiss I'm using now look f***ing amazing and suit me better. I appreciate what your saying. just offering a different pov. yes, two actually. and the latest is finally getting a release date for late this year or early next. in talks now with the distributor.

Yeah, no problem! This is a 30 second teaser. We're saving the actual trailer for much closer to the release date. This film was shot on a GH4, by the way.

Shot entirely with the Samsung NX1 at 60P with DIS ON at 150Mbit using the Nikkor 35mm f2 manual lens. The DIS works pretty good to OK with manual lenses, unless you do weird movements!

What if there was a way where you had an option when you put it into record it always simultaneously selected the shutter speed in case you'd accidentally knocked it? Noted, if so.

A workaround for the display button is actually a modification...get a small clear silicone bumper (used kitchen cabinets)...any hardware store....cut out the center part, peel of the sticky protector and stick it over the display button...that makes depressing accidentally impossible yet you can still reach it with something small enough...I never change it from the display I prefer with the level horizon line...my sollution for the shutter angle is always looking in the LCD before rolling, but it is a PITA!

I recently decided to find out which of the current 1080/120fps capable cameras does it the best. Read the full article

I am in the UK at the moment so thought I'd search for things to do I think one of the 80mm F2.8 might be a good option because the camera body is already 2kg and the zoom will take it close to 4kg! The 80mm is tiny however and I do tend to use 50mm equiv. focal lengths a lot. I had thought about getting the 50mm F3.5, as that pretty much gives you the look of 35mm medium format and 50mm full frame in one lens... just from a crop in Photoshop to get the full frame 50mm look. The dream lens seems to be 100mm F2.2 but starts at £1450 on eBay. The lenses have leaf shutters... Warranty says they will be guaranteed for 100,000 shots and should last close to 200,000 if you're lucky!

Indeed. 56... LOL So back to single version :-D

That's not bad is it?! Bought the Park Cameras H3DII-39. The lenses, not sure what to do... How much is the 50-110mm usually worth?

Congrats on feature, Zak! I salute any film shot on a GHx, and am as eager as anyone to see what cameras we all use next...

Well apart from those two annoyances I'm actually really impressed with the camera and the image. I can see me carrying on using this for some time!

poster is dope @Zak Forsman

I'll look into it. I actually would be curious to give this a try and I apologize for getting worked up earlier, it's been a rough week, and that's made me a little touchy. I'm as convinced as ever I'm right, but I do feel foolish for getting heated. Anytime anyone mentions money online it's as dumb as mentioning Hitler or resulting to ad hominem attacks. Pointless escalation. My bad on escalating that one. Maybe I was just trying to add a little more to my down payment. But that wouldn't be fair. Now that I see Beverly Hills in your profile, I'm starting to think you could escalate the wager a lot higher than me without suffering the consequences, but it's still just a shitty way of escalating an argument. Sorry about all that. That said, I'll see if I can rent a 4k zone plate or visit Red headquarters or something. I don't want to spend hundreds of dollars to win an argument online when I only have to prove something to you (those actually designing sensors are already following my model), but on the other hand I'm curious. Can we agree to use a sine wave plate rather than a square wave plate? And can we agree that a blurry image doesn't count as aliasing, only false detail does, and that slight false detail specifically from sharpening isn't aliasing, either? The real difficulty is that the best thing I have is a Foveon camera (don't own an M monochrome or anything) and Sigma's zero sharpening setting still has some sharpening, and one-pixel radius sharpening looks like slight false detail at one pixel. So the result will be a little funky due to real world variables. But I still contend that the result will correlate far more closely with my model: a properly framed 4k sinusoidal zone plate won't exhibit significant aliasing when shot with the 4k crop portion of a Foveon camera, even if the full resolution isn't clearly resolved when the two are out of phase. But we have to go with a sinusoidal zone plate (which is unfortunately the really expensive and scarce one, binary is cheaper and far more common) and recognize that if it's fully out of phase the result will be near-gray. That aside, I would be genuinely curious to put a 4k zone plate in front of a 4k Foveon crop. But we'd have to agree SINUSOIDAL lines (halves of full sinusoidal cycles). Even if it's just a gentleman's bet. Let's agree on a sinusoidal zone plate first. And I apologize again for getting worked up. That was really childish of me. It's been a bad week and I'm sorry about that.

If you can find me an affordable 4k zone plate (SINUSOIDAL) I will. You're right it's not about money but I also don't have to prove it to myself. Like, how's $10,000? Doesn't make me any more right or wrong. This escalation is absurd and I'm sorry I got involved with it. Might makes right is generally wrong. You're right to the extent that it doesn't matter, it's about what's right and not about money or what sources claim what (even if the reputable ones agree with my model). I apologize for that, but why should I spend money to prove to myself what I already know? It's not on me to prove you wrong, it's on you to stop spreading misinformation.

Depends how confident you are that you're right. I'm 100% confident that I am. If you can find a 4k SINUSOIDAL zone plate to shoot and we can agree on what represents 2,000 horizontal line pairs, let's just make it a $500 wager. I'll bring my Foveon camera. Again, there will be some slight difference due to real-world factors like imperfectly aligned grids and quantization error and sharpening etc. But the result will be far closer to the figure I cite than the one you do. It doesn't matter how many people agree with Graeme. What matters is that he's the one doing math and the others are confusing vertical axes with horizontal axes and confusing sine waves with square waves... those articles are poorly-researched and scattershot in their methodology. They're click bait. Truth is truth. Doesn't matter what the majority says. That's what I'm standing up for above all else.

Indica, at the moment. And I don't have to prove my point to anyone but you, because everyone else gets it. At least the people who matter, like Graeme and whoever put that test together. I just wish you wouldn't spread this kind of misinformation online. If you want to you're free to but there's already enough misinformation out there. Case in point, that article confuses vertical and horizontal lines of resolution. So did you. Buy me a 4k sinusoidal (not square wave) zone plate. (Let's keep the budget at $500 or less.) I'll photograph it with a Foveon camera, center crop 4k. If the behavior correlates more closely with the model I correctly cite than the one you made up, you eat the cost of the zone plate. If it correlates with your claims, I'll pay you back. We can accept a small margin of error either way due to other real world factors (quantization error, things not being perfectly aligned). But our models are vastly different so we should see one or the other clearly prevail. I'm dead serious. But keep the zone plate to $500 or less I have rent to pay and am saving up for a house. :/

Then why does the image you recently posted show 540 line pairs (1080 lines) in the VERTICAL (not horizontal) resolution for the F3? Exactly as my model would predict from a full raster 3 megapixel sample downscaled to 1080p? And 848 line pairs for the Alexa in RAW, very close to the figure my model would predict (it would predict 1620 lines from a 2880X1620 sensor, or 810 line pairs–the difference between 810 and 848 could be aliasing reading as false detail). Edit: also, that wasn't long enough to read a four-page thread. Go back and read it all. I had my questions, too, at first, until I got into the difference between sinusoidal and binary zone plates. Anyhow, I'm done. Everything except online banter agrees with what I've posted, including repeatably real-world behavior (science) and numbers (math). If you want to take this up with Graeme I encourage you to, but I just wish you wouldn't freely post misinformation like this.

JCS, can you stop propagating that incorrect version of the Nyquist theorem? If you want I can link you to the original thread where Graeme Nattress at Red describes how it actually works. If you agree to take a look at it I'll leave you alone about it, since usually you're a valuable contributor, but I hate to see that kind of misinformation spread online in a technical forum.

That's a workflow decision. Not sure why you would store in folders outside of the library, probably some shared storage environment. I usually store inside the library, but don't have the libraries on my system drive. There are countless ways to do this. You could also wrap or transcode to ProRes with another app (EditReady, Kyno) and then leave files in place.

on those leaked chinese slides that this info is taken from the last but one was translated as:"features for video" followed by "empty page". Inference hopefully is there are some to follow, not none at all! So apart from waiting for some sample footage, I guess we're still waiting on codec, data rates, peaking, zebras, (anything else?) it was also pointed out on nikon rumors that the high iso is conservative.

I've never been that bullish on 4k video or it providing a significant or worthwhile improvement in real-world use. For UI elements on phones and computers I think a high res display is advantageous, but 4k video doesn't look significantly better to me at normal viewing distances (except maybe for line art and 2D animation). I recall that the text on my projector from my PS4 looks pixellated but the video never does. For VR I think higher resolutions are going to be particularly important, for video and UI elements alike. The statistic you posted is misleading. Most of us are in the US or developed countries that have at least a majority HD infrastructure and even if we're selling to other markets that don't have HD, those markets are less important to our revenue stream. I think all of us benefit from shooting HD. I think most of us know whether our clients will pay more for 4k and it's really just a cost-benefit analysis at that point. Or as hobbyists, we decide that cost-benefit analysis subjectively. Personally, I prefer working with 2k or 1080p media both professionally and as a hobby. I hate doing the extra busy work or waiting on the extra renders and I don't see any difference in real-world use. I just don't see the difference, but my eyes are now 20:30 or 20:20. When I was young and they were 20:15 I bet I tell the difference even with video at a normal viewing distance. I do think VR video is too low res now and that will need to be acquired at 8k or 16k or beyond to look good. I don't personally expect that most tv networks will upgrade their infrastructure to 1080p in the US or abroad. Upgrading to HD was recent and very expensive. Their libraries are all 1080p anyway, and finished as such. But I do think tv will eventually be displaced by Netflix, YouTube, Amazon, etc. which already have 4k infrastructure. So watching how that market changes and evolves and tracing those viewership graphs will probably give a pretty good idea when 4k will become widely demanded. CBS won't push its shows to 4k for air. Not ever, I think. But Netflix might push them to shoot in 4k so they can license a 4k deliverable for their own distribution. When networks earn more money from licensing 4k to Netflix than they suffer in added production cost shooting in that format (fwiw, the added cost is deceptively enormous for larger productions), we'll see a quick change. That won't be too soon. But it will happen soon enough. Probably sooner than we think! I bet Arri is targeting a true 4k Alexa for before that date. Personally, I'm in no rush at all to upgrade, but that's just me! I know a lot of people here are primarily targeting Netflix Original distribution (based on posts I've read). I still think 1080p is fine for that. They'll acquire 1080p movies as originals; they just won't produce 1080p series. So I wouldn't worry about that. TL;DR: People shooting 4k did a cost-benefit analysis and 4k provided more profit from their clients, which in that case are the only clients who matter, or they just want to because they're hobbyists, in which case their preferences (and bank account) are all that matter.

Woawww you are getting great result keep going

Your client probably wont see the difference if its only viewed on youtube.

yep

Exactly what I mean when I say a "locking MFT" mount! Like the Sony FZ mount, or the new E mount on the FS7 mk2. A Panasonic EVA1 MFT would allow you to do all that, **and** give you the additional options of gaining a stop of light with a FF FoV with your lenses if using a focal reducer. *And* let you use MFT lenses too, if you ever changed your mind and went down that path in the future (or sold your EVA1 MFT in the future to a MFT shooter then they could buy it from you).

150 Mbits LGOP only at the moment, not really the perfect codec... The title of the post is C200 or 1Dx II for 4k 60p ....on paper both ar better than EVA1 for the OP. Real life could be different

Dave has done some of the nicest pro work I've seen on this site and if you go back and watch his Vimeo history, even his earlier work was a step ahead, so I'm pretty sure he has heard of the GH5, EVA, Ursa, etc... so with the question at hand, which camera makes more sense... the 1DXii or the C200? Now, I wish I could be more helpful as I haven't used either, but being a Canon shooter I have followed both cameras and I think it really comes down to two questions as both seem like excellent tools. 1. With the C200 are you okay with the media space needed, with both recording and storage to shoot and edit Raw? 2. Do you prefer the DSLR form factor over the cinema camera form factor? I, personally, wouldn't spend the money on a 1DXii when the C200 is lingering around for just a little more and shooting 4K Raw up to 60p. But I don't shoot any stills and love Raw. But with that comes extra costs and a bigger footprint. I guess it depends on the type of work you plan on using it for? And I guess the 1DXii is coming down in price a little, so you may catch a steal on the used market. Hmm... tough call. If only Canon would introduce a 1DC Mark ii.

Not sure where the C200 it fall short on important areas? Dave is interested according to his question to 4k 60p and there the difference between 1Dx II and C200 is 20% so the cost in file size is well worth for RAW. Worst case scenario after the firmware you get 4k RAWLight at 1 GBits, 4:2:2 8bit 300 Mbits, 4:2:0 150 Mbits and all up to 4k 60p not like the EVA1 that is only 4:2:0 at 60p. Best case you get 4:2:2 10 bits 400 MBits instead of the 8 bits. The DPAF could be better but is still the best on any dedicated video camera. I agree that the 1DX does not look like a cinema camera so it is more discrete.

The advantage of 4K is that you can re-frame or stabilize the shoots before downscale to 1080p, that is very useful, but if you have a very good HD cam and you are good framing during the shooting, no much difference to be honest….

I feel the c200 is a camera that could have been great, but was designed to fall short in some very important areas. The 1DXMk2 is an epic camera, and if you are doing limited CG, it's a great choice... This is especially true if you are focused mainly on stills. But if the focus is video only, there are better options. I would stay clear of the c200, unless you can handle the heaps of data. I will not recommend a camera I have not seen good amounts of footage and reviews from, so I cannot really recommend the Panasonic EVA1... but I would recommend waiting to see what it brings before parting with $6k+. If stealthily is part of the attraction, forget dedicated video cameras. While the 1DXMk2 does attract attention, it does not attract the kind that requires a permit, so that's a plus. The GH5 is pretty much invisible compared to the 1DXMk2. Zero questions... No "are you a professional" comments... nothing.

I'm going to shoot a promotional spot for a serious off road piece where the water is sometimes up to the driver's necks in the cabin...I want some underwater footage as well as close to river level as the truck goes down an embankment, etc....most filmed in an extremely muddy humid environment in the Ecuadorian jungle. https://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/1335061-REG/olympus_v104190bu000_tg_5_digital_camera_black.html I opted for this...goes down 70 ft underwater as is...300ft with an additional $299 underwater housing...mud on the lens?...squirt it down with your water bottle and keep shooting....f2.0 at the wide side on a 25-100mm zoom and Image wise blows past both the GoPro or my Inspire 1 camera....in fact, at 250g I'm going to figure out how to attach it below my Inspire camera so I can do things like very high boom shots etc., while using live view on the Inspire camera just to fly the bird...the Inspire can certainly lift the extra weight, albeit at the expense of battery life. In your case I would use it on everything while in the Kayak and the GH5 and Maverick for your "dry" establishing shots from a river bank or some similar safe zone....splash proof would not survive the GH5 going under!...anyway...test footage on PV....I'll have mine in about 10 days.

A lifejacket

Do you get a large chunk of your income from stills shooting? Then you need to at least own the likes of a Canon 5D mk3 / Nikon D750 / Nikon D500 / etc However.... unless you are the rare 0.00000001% of pro sports photographers, do you do not NEED the 1D X mk2 for stills. So get a much cheaper DSLR for your stills on the side (or even skip it entirely and use your iPhone, if it is only for super casual personal use and you're very tight for money) and get an actual cinema camera instead (although I'm not a fan of the C200. Go for Panasonic EVA1 or Sony FS7 or URSA Mini Pro instead).

@DaveAltizer Never forget, it's baked in vs. RAW. If you need a maximum of maleability and a wide range of options to go (and better base for VFX, etc.) in post, I would always go for RAW.

With a decent hw (4 core i7 notebook) MJPEG is no problem at all to edit. On my gaming notebook there is no difference in speed between mjpg and DNxHR in resolove at 4k 60p. RAWlight needs more HW I guess especially over 30p... but I would need to test it again once I find a 4k 60p RAWlight file: Is not yet sure if it will be 8 bit or 10bit.... a guy from Canon USA stated that it will be 8bit, a guy from Canon Japan stated that it will not be 8bit..(so 6bit:-) or 10bit). First question to ask is what percentage of photo vs. video you do with your 1DC? In my case is 60% photos 40% video... best would be to have both the 1Dx II and add the C200 but it becomes expensive... Rent is good idea looking forward to your opinion

I have the 1Dx II and I love it. Great for action photo and also great for video and for me is very good to be able to do both with a single camera. But as video camera there is really no contest at least on paper: C200 + NDs!! + RAWLight (at 60p no big difference in file size 1000 Mbits vs 800 Mbits 1Dx) + h264 150 Mbits for long recording + audio + no recording limit + mp4 proxy (can be used also as backup too) + DR in RAWLight + Log and lut monitoring + Viewfinder + integrated WiFi + zebra, waveforms, etc…. - 1.5 crop - no photos - a bit bigger - DPAF not as good as the 1Dx II - more expensive especially if buying a used 1Dx II - For RAWLight better Computer needed as MJPEG Same weight Not sure about the 120 fps quality which is better and if the C200 can AF at 120fps If you plan to keep the 1Dc I would not buy a 1Dx II but a C200. Anyway I would wait a bit to see how the C200 fares on the real world… now that the first units are delivered we should see more videos and experience sharing.

Easy. Nothing that hasn't been said before really, but after using the a7sii last weekend I just found it so awkward to use. But if you want me to spell it out, I think the GH5's advantages (from my extensive experience of using both) over the a7sii are... Better battery, better colors, MUCH better menus, 10bit, NO CROP IN SLOW MO (compared to the painful2 x crop on the a7sii), feature rich (like built in timelapse etc), MUCH better EVF/LCD, dual sd. I could go on. Yes, the Sony is amazing in low light but ad the expense of colour and dynamic range.

Yes. There are two polls running on here for features and controller choice. So its very close now. A bit delayed because there will be some different hardware that its going to run on so I need to re-write stuff but its weeks rather than months.