Leaderboard

On the Nikon Z7 how much difference does 10bit N-LOG make? Is there a step up from the Canon EOS R when you record 10bit externally? How does the Fuji X-T3 compare in F-LOG at 10bit internally? All the questions and more I set out to answer here... Read the full article

Well, after finally putting a card in it and doing some shooting, my advice would be that if you venture outdoors with it, take an EVF or run the risk of having to buy a neck brace on the way home. On the upside if you get caught it in a downpour, put the camera in record for 5 minutes and you will have a very functional hand warmer and hairdryer combo.

I am sorry i did not mean to critique your brofriend The problem I have is that it's incomplete. There's no telling what sharpness was dialled into each picture profile. That makes a ton of difference. There's no telling what the hell he did to the zoomed shots. The EOS R just does not look like that at 100% crop. He's turned into absolute mush when you view this full screen (click it to enlarge)... What codec settings? He doesn't say. Was it IPB or ALL-I? What bit-rate? Did he shoot RAW or ProRes on the Pocket? Did he compare the sharpness in the LOG profiles as well? Nope. That's how most filmmakers will use these cameras... In LOG! (Or at least Flat on the Nikon) Nothing personal but I just didn't rate it. And on top of all that, it's just pixel peeping. Overall results and cinematic quality matter more than resolution.

Loosing 'rights' every day, Under cultural attack every day, Being told I'm guilty of the worlds 'problems' every day, Forced to paying taxes to fund all this propaganda, Such is my life as a white male in our place of origin, Europe. We're at the most technological amazing time, why do we let this get messed up?

Max repeatedly stated that this was the first of several tests. I'd rather see his findings as he shoots them, then wait a month for a 40 minute video with all the results in every category.

Awesome stuff! Looking forward to hear your impressions mate, unfortunately i haven't had enough time to play with mine but I love it so far! (just make sure you have enough batteries with you!) ? ps. FilmConvert also just released the camera pack for the BBMPCC4K, result!

The PROAV dynamic range tests are pretty useless. They don't understand that ISO is not exposure. So they have not actually increased the exposure at all steps in these tests. In some they have just changed the iso. Which just shows how the camera reacts to the same exposure at different iso's. Thats why you see such a masive difference at the so called "+3 stops" on the pocket4k test. Between "+1 stops" iso 400 and "+2 stops" 800 thats actually exaclty the same exposure and native iso with a different tone curve aplied. So there would be no difference in what clipped. Whereas with the "+3 stops" thats the same exposure but with a real 2 stop iso boost, so the clipping point has gone down 2 stops in a single step. A better test would be to keep the iso the same and change the actual exposure. You could then do the same test at different iso's to see how iso effected dynamic range.

Maybe I can

Default sharpness varies a lot between cameras. Even minimum sharpening level does. Maybe set them all at minimum then level them out in post with unsharp mask or even small blur for the horrible oversharpened ones. EOS R is not line skipping. It’s 1:1

Yes Although it would possibly be covered by the exceptions in Paragraph 23 where they would be considered "accessories" to a scene but it also covers clubs to use clearly identifiable images of people within the crowd. In my experience, of course, football fans in general don't exactly need much persuading to leap in front of a lens. I'm going to respectfully disagree and say that my view of it is that Brexit is the iceberg. And we are still sailing a course directly at it. In broad daylight. While pretending its a Fox's glacier mint.

You got all that from Max's test - ONE SHOT!? Trust me the EOS R image is not lacking. Yeah the rolling shutter and crop are downsides. Almost deal-breakers for many. I suppose I will just have to show you. Will shoot some stuff and upload it as ProRes for people to play around with.

Well if the other tests are like the frist one... Will he compare the dynamic range from 10bit log on the fuji with 8bit internal Vivid picturestyle on the nikon? Who knows...

Pixel peeping is alive and well I see! Nikon Z7 is fine. It is a miracle in full frame from 8.2K down to 4K. Very nice detail level. Very good dynamic range and colour, which Max's test doesn't even touch on. Z7 in APS-C is similar but less aliasing / stair stepping - but we are talking 4K here, so at normal viewing distances you don't even see the aliasing in full frame mode, let alone in the oversampled Super 35 mode. The EOS R is soft. So what. It's 4K. You have more detail than you'll ever need unless cropping 4x into the image. You wanna know why I don't do tests like this very much anymore? 1. Nobody views your film or music video at 400% crop. The absolute sharpness level in 4K means JACK SHIT. What you want is a soft stable cinematic image - not hard digital sharpness. In fact it's an *advantage* to have a softer image for YouTube, when the player is scaling it down to fit any number of screen resolutions - especially a 1080p screen. It looks more natural when people view it downscaled or even on a 4K TV from normal viewing distances. In the first case the downscaling works badly with a digitally sharper, harder image vs a softer, more cinematic one. In the second case the natural downscaling from the human eye at a longer viewing distance makes a less hard 4K image at 1:1 look more natural and less fatiguing than a "harder" image which shows more emphasised detail. We have plenty enough detail in 4K as it is, even on the EOS R and to overemphasise it, like in Max's video, is a BAD THING. 2. The test by Max claims to be about image quality when he's only testing one small aspect of it and not even very well. He's actually looking 90% at the sharpening levels in the menus, rather than outright performance of the image. All the cameras apply a different level of sharpening to bring out extra detail. You can dial it down or up. So what? How natural and cinematic does that fine detail look to the real viewer? That is the real question. 3. Max's video tests just one aspect of the camera and seems to imply it's 90% of what makes a good image. A wide shot of a building with constantly shifting light at dusk so that not even the lighting conditions are matched on each comparison shot. It says nothing of colour, dynamic range, skin-tones, lenses, sensor size, rolling shutter, motion cadence, codec performance, macro blocking, mud, compression, grading, bit-depth, LOG profile performance and how easy or not it is to grade. These are the things that determine the final result. These are the important things and not ONE in isolation but ALL together. Go back and do a proper test Max that takes you longer than half an hour... But no, he's got subscriber numbers and viewers to chase so it must be done quick! Why the Z7 is singled out for criticism because of Max's test is beyond my understanding. It justifies the pricing over the A7R III because it is a flat out better camera in every aspect of image quality and handling. It justifies the pricing over the D850 because it adds video AF which actually works, gets rid of the mirror, fixes the ergonomics in live-view, shaves the pounds off and at the same time maintains the incredible video quality.

Take a look at the shots above. Looks fine to me. And that is vs the most detailed 4K camera I own - the X-T3 with the 6K oversampling. Max Yuryev's test video In this thread there was some talk about Max's video. It has been basic knowledge for filmmakers since the 5D Mark III that you can apply different sharpness in-camera, but that it's always better to dial it down to zero in-camera with the option to sharpen in post. The natural look is at 0 but if you want more pop, you just drop the Unsharp Mask or Sharpen effect on in Premiere. Max shows the unsharpened camera file and claims it's a performance problem with the camera. Yet with the digital sharpness applied in post, you can see it matches the X-T3 for fine detail above. This is in 4K even when pixel peeped at 1:1. At normal viewing distances, you'll want to dial it back down to 0 for a more natural less digital look. No digital sharpening is a GOOD THING out of camera Canon is doing the right thing and they are getting blasted for it. That's the original file. Big difference. What I don't get about Max is surely he knew about this basic stuff even from the 5D Mark III sharpening in post days. At the same time other people are complaining that cameras like the GH5 are too sharp and you can't turn off the digital sharpening in-camera(!!!) and they all want to go off and shoot RAW on the Blackmagic Pocket Cinema Camera 4K to get a more natural image. I bet some of these same people are now complaining the EOS R is too soft!! Blow-ups on YouTube The biggest joke of all is the 400% digital zoom people use in YouTube to magnify the unsharpened detail, which together with YouTube's compression makes a complete mush. Even just the digital zoom itself results in mud. Here I did it with the unsharpened EOS R 1:1 crop. If this is how we are to judge the performance and image quality of 4K on YouTube it's seriously misleading. Click this to view at 400% and see how muddy it is (and that's a TIFF!!) - ************************************** Original TIFFs direct from Premiere (3840 x 2160) X-T3 with whatever sharpening in-camera it seems to be doing in F-LOG x-t3-sharpness.tif EOS R sharpened eos-r.tif EOS R unsharpened direct from camera (Canon LOG, zero sharpness) eos-r-unsharpened.tif

Hilarious, I wish the p4k would have been in some kind of flat profile “factory setting” and he would have complained about the contrast of the image and no apparent sharpness. This test was an eyesore and a waste of my time! This is going full loop back to that camera blogger reviewers thread, I mean what is he doing on yt even talking about cameras, I dearly wish for him his intention is to sell Sony or what not otherwise he has to be simply trolling.

I turn down sharpness all the way but I never add sharpening in post. Same with photos. The bad thing about canon is their 120fps is pretty poor. I think Canon's 4k is nice. Their 1080 tends to be really noticeably softer even without punching in. Thats where the problem is for me. Haven't seen any 1080 EOS R stuff yet or at least not comparisons.

The BMPCC4k is an evolution of the original cinema camera, and original pocket - combined into one camera. I think BM is going higher end with a large format version of the UMP.

Some screen grabs from a music video teaser I'm making. Shot with GH5, old ENG lens, and the Atomos NInja V in ProRes 422 with the Tungsten LogC LUT baked into the footage. It gave me a really good starting point to add different LUT's and start grading. Also added the 4:3 border and film grain.

The slight catch is that the camera is at my girlfriend's in Berlin! I won't get it until Tuesday or Wednesday next week. That gives me at least 4 days to stitch a nice rain jacket for it. Or maybe a small umbrella that attaches to the hotshoe?

I don't want to sound to negative towards the XT3 image because I think it's pretty wonderful overall and a more pleasing image than I had from the gh5.. however I wish all these cameras would add an 'off' to the noise reduction and sharpness. Then we could add a little for straight out cam looks if we like but leave it off for doing later or just leaving it natural. I guess people would be shocked at how noisy beyond iso 400 on a gh5 would be without the processing though ?

It's an inbuilt time lapse funtion. It would be impossible with real time playback. But you can tell everything is sped up.

I had sharpness down at -3 on the X-T3 just one notch above minimum (-4), to maintain some grain texture - and the contrast is as low as you can get in F-LOG... Still too much digital sharpness to the image. It is a bit like the GH5 where you cannot quite turn off the digital sharpening.

It would be cool if you could upload 16bit screengrab sample tifs instead of video files, it's much easier to download and to compare several files in PS. Thanks @Andrew Reid

I'd say cam A is the GH5s based on the sharpening in the fine details.

They skipped FF and choose instead to go with medium format. Where are the Medium format offerings from Canon, Sony and Panasonic etc... ?

Another great video - you are killing it! Like last time, I'm not sure what to ask for except that if you talk about film-making and don't talk about camera settings then it'll be great

It depends on how you shoot. It might not be a major issue for many, but I draw a lot of inspiration from the aesthetic of directors who make prominent use of ultra wides like Terry Gilliam, Terrence Malick and Michael Mann (of late), so it is for me.

Man, I knew I appreciate your insights. But you took exactly my thoughts this time when I watched it, even before this thread to have popped up. So I guess we cannot go wrong, both of us, in any way whatsoever... ; -)

the Internets a big target for a lot of reasons. no doubt governments will or are looking for their slice of the pie and its no secret that governments need more money not to mention those corporations that whisper into their ears . unfortunately due to an lack of common sense and a lot of apathy and a propensity for political correctness most people collectively aren't much smarter than a herd of cows they are counting on the fact as proposed that it will create mass hysteria, everyone will have a hissy fit.it will get watered down till everyones happy and eventually pass , but by then you will need to obtain a permit to stay within the laws and seeing not government does anything for free it gonnna cost you $$ .its just an additional revenue stream some crazy smart person has come up with. film corporations already pay $$ to make movies in cities and popular spots and not so popular.why not get a slice of the little guy that does youtube or vimeo as well ? i bet a bunch of of permits from the little guys would add up to a truck load of money.

200 euros. DMCA that.

This sharpness test video is fucked.

He’s notoriously “fair” but only to the brands he wants to win. I stopped watching his videos when he performed his “...vs the C200 tests” last year.

So, no more privately owned security cameras that can see public land? I guess that's how you become invisible in the future - just cover yourself in brand content and be redacted from the official record!

I am not impressed, Andrew. I was unable to see all the blemishes on people's faces. It is not sharp enough. ?

Our psicopathic control freaks from brussel doing their thing.

Oh boy!!!! This world is freaking me out... that feeling of freedom we think we have... Sorry I'm closing on 50 Years old, I lived through interesting decades 80' 90' and now this!!! Give it another 20 years and I think some of those old scifi movies might just be a reality....

All of the IBIS systems I have seen to date seem to occasionally introduce a weird warping effect into the footage. It is unpredictable and can often times ruin otherwise great shots. I just prefer to have more control. If something it going to go wrong when I'm filming, I want it to be my fault... that way I have the power to fix it.

The new 'in Post: Cinematic Luminance' section on page 2 of the new PDF is critical, in addition to the new supplemental waveforms Essentially, the top third of the waveform is where extreme highlights place when conforming to cinema standard luminance. The GH5 is missing the three stops on top, and EC Main/Soft really encourage correct placement of luma for the cinema when exposing for them (moderately), and have beautiful handling of harsh skin detail

@Oliver Daniel Thanks Oliver. Looking at his previous posts, I think he might be referring to luts for LogC, and was confused about what you meant I hope people will find it worth it, and consider my own personal investment to get it to where it is today. I believe in doing free updates and personal service because I want people to have the best, and to do right by the people who put their faith in me (no matter what or how long it takes)

The CEO of Z Cam told me in the FB forum yesterday that ProRes 10 bit 4:2:2 internal is "100% happening" and when I asked him on a timeline he said "weeks". Not sure if that mean 40 weeks or 4, but that is what he said. They released this yesterday too. He said the triple native ISO (which seems like bad marketing) is that the native ISO is 200 and 800, but when they do wide dynamic range (which does look promising for static shots like interviews in front of windows) the native is iso 80. If E2 really gets ProRes 422 internally and starts to lower their price closer to GH5 levels, I think it could be a real rival to the Pocket. Lots of people like me just don't really need or want RAW, but they do want ProRes 422. And 5 inch 1080 monitors are so cheap now, having an articulating one is just such a huge advantage. I've said many times I'd actually pay more money for a Pocket 4k camera that doesn't have a screen (battery would last probably 2x as long)!

@Robert Collins even better: it does object tracking in continuous, so you can select the eye (given you are close enough) and it'll track it. YMMV, but it's pretty dope feature.

FWIW here is a SOOC EOS R 4K screen grab shot wide open (RF 50mm), plenty of detail & sharpness as far as i'm concerned. Also I'd like to see another camera's AF track the eye like that at F1.2 ...

Its a shame the xt3 does not have IBIS. For handheld shotting with adapted vintage lenses, it won't cut it...

I mentioned something similar in the Pocket4K thread just after I got the camera. I bought mine as a B Cam to the Ursa Mini Pro. Ultimately though, I would happily have paid a little more for a 'Pocket4KPro'. Sensor wise, I'm happy with the MFT sensor as I am using mine exclusively with Speedboosters. The other downside generally for MFT is low light performance but I'm really happy with the Pocket4K in that regard. Blackmagic, make a Pocket4K Pro with same sensor but a form factor that can include a tilting screen, can accomodate a Sony BPU-60 style battery, an SDi output and maybe has internal ND's. For me, I would want it a little smaller than an FS5, maybe similar to a Canon XC15/ C100 style. ?

Average Joe definitely looks to Canikon since they are so familiar names. But I also think for many of us brand has very little to do with it. All of these cameras where available when my EOS-R arrived and I still bought it, and so did others. Before that me and many with me choose the 6Dmkii well aware about the A7iii, GH5, etc. And I'm sure I'm not alone in being mostly a Panasonic and Sony shooter. So it was not because of the brand. Nor was it for the side by side image quality. I was shooting both 2.5K and 4K Raw before 4K even took off. I've had most popular 4K hybrids to date as well as the BMD4K and RED 1MX with 4.5K Raw. In other words, none of the above is really blowing my mind. And still I went for the EOS-R. It wasn't in some naive believe that the Canon will have the most detailed video at 400% in some weird multi cam production. All I know is that right in front of me on my desk sits a Panasonic G85, a Fuji X-H1 and an EOS-R. I have native and adapted glass plus speedboosters for the two crop cameras. Only adapted EF glass for the EOS-R. I have only a few hours of experience with the Canon but have shot several gigs with the other two. On today's agenda is a video shoot. No stills, video only. Docu style with lots of handheld. There will be some interviews both "sitting down" and with a lav in action. A lot of fast action and rather large locations. The finished video will be shown at an award show on the big screen in front of a couple of hundred people and of course online. I'm bringing the Canon. No question about it. Because believe it or not, it actually offers things that the others don't. And it does it so well that I don't care about the risk of someone hacking the event and showing a similar video shot with a RED Epic side by side and then zooming in 400% (The X-H1 tags a long as backup and in case I feel the need for some 100fps instead of just 50.)

I never seem to share anything I've worked on which I did the sound for, so for a change, here is something I just got notified about. A doco about Speedway Racing:

A Zoom F4 is only marginally more expensive than an H6, but 100000x better. But if going the low low budget path, then get the Tascam DR60Dmk2 over the H6, better design and better audio quality. And take the DR10L over the F1 for bodypack recorders, the DR10L is noticeably smaller, which is a big thing for a bodypack of course! I agree. But even the DR60D mk1 sounds better over the H5/H6 At this level there is 0% reason to stay within the same brand. Just pick the best product at each price point.

Maybe the battery door falling off is actually to tell us that the battery is at 5% and really must be changed now, even though the meter is showing full

I think there's room above the Pocket 4K for the same image quality in a better built body with more features. Seems like a no brainer to me. People love the image and the back-end monitoring on the Pocket but it's never going to have the depth of features of a GH5 for the price it is - they would have to up the price to make it more ambitious. Around $2500 would bring us all sorts of goodies. I also wish the form factor would be more along the lines of a GH5 as well with an EVF.