Leaderboard

I love Jim's quote so much!

Regarding Dynamic Range - proper exposure for this particular camera might be the issue here: https://filmvideoandvirtualreality.com/varicam-shooter-nick-dabas-captures-extreme-action-with-the-lumix-s1h/ "At 800 ISO, the VariCam is seven stops over and seven stops under. The S1H is six stops over and eight under, so you actually retain great shadow detail. On set, I made sure that my highlights were holding since I could always fill the shadows in with light. Once you learn and become comfortable with the S1H, you can easily match it to the VariCam. The color that is reproduces is beautiful and is very similar to the VariCam."

Well, he certainly didn't invent tacky sunglasses and ugly shirts. Promo-wear has built-in hype, just because it is part of the fashion industry. On the other hand, the sunglasses and shirts probably didn't get as much hype as the RED One, which was vaporware for about 3 years. The RED founder and "hoax" mentioned in the same post? Oh, the irony... Some guy made a video about RED's special drives. I think he noticed something.

Has anyone here bought a Panavision DXL? ? Whether or not someone on this site bought something has no reflection on the innovation nor quality of the item in question. I don't think that I ever actually knew what the rental prices were on any one of the different Dalsa 4K raw cameras. Nevertheless, Dalsa was offering 4K raw long before it was even a glint in Jannard's eye. Keep in mind that the first ones to break ground usually incur the most development cost and sink the most resources into a type of product. So, initially, a new type of product is usually very expensive. Often, someone with deep pockets sees the development, and swoops into a market to take advantage of it (and gets all the credit). How does that $15K, very late-to-market, buggy RED One compare to a $1,500 Pocket4K? Do you see how that works? Jannard just rode a wave. Raw video and higher resolutions were inevitable in cinema cameras, as was raw compression. He didn't invent really anything.

Thought about doing it? Nope, me neither. Except.....I've been thinking quite a lot about the Meike cine primes over the past couple of weeks and the slight sticking point of them being tied into the MFT lens mount cameras. Its not a massive deal breaker particularly as there are no shortage of great options to mount them on but as someone who also owns a couple of E mount cameras, it would be nice to have the versatility of being able to use them on those too, albeit it in APS-C mode. The Veydras, which the Meike lenses are "closely associated" with, did have an E mount option IIRC but the new ones don't. Which got me thinking about whether, as there is some flange distance to play with, there was an MFT to E mount adapter available and it turns out that there is one made by Pixco so £18 later, I now have it and here it is. As there isn't a massive amount of flange distance to play with (1.25mm) then the adapter is understandably quite thin yet doesn't particularly feel flimsy but I did find that when changing lenses its better to dismount the lens with the adapter attached and then re-attach it to the next lens as its a bit fiddly to lift the locking pin release on the adapter. Now the first thing to say is, other than to just try that it works, there is absolutely no point in mounting an electronic MFT lens such as this. You will have absolutely no control of the aperture, focus and in most cases the lens will not fill the sensor. So, absolutely pointless and probably explains why there is no particularly buoyant market in making these adapters Of course, for our purposes, of mounting manual only MFT lenses to it then it works perfectly. That doesn't just go for the Meike lenses but of course for any manual lens such as Voigtlander, Samyang, 7Artisans etc. Its worth checking but most of these lenses are usually originally made for APS-C so even in MFT mount they will have enough coverage. Where things get really interesting for me though, and I suspect for people with both MFT and E mount systems is being able to re-utilise existing MFT adapters. For me, these range from an obvious one such as PL... To being able to use my Nikon F/G to MFT speed booster which with its integral aperture lever control is so much more usable than having to use a Canon version with a thin F adapter on it and the fiddly aperture lever. Next up is being able to mount the Vizelex Lens Throttle Variable ND adapter to make a compact fast swappable full frame system with vintage primes. Last but not least is being able to use Aputure DEC Lens Regain on the A6500 to speedboost Canon lenses and have electronic follow focus control. OK, so most of these things can be done with dedicated E mount versions of these adapters but the biggest issue is the additional cost of buying them all again if you run both systems. That £18 adapter (which I had no idea existed ) has saved well over £1000 in additional adapters for the E mount cameras. Using my warped justification logic, that means I am now legally entitled to buy two of the Meike primes as I will still be £250 up on the deal Seriously though, for anyone who is moving from an MFT to E mount system or who has E mount cameras and never had MFT but wants to take advantage of the usually less expensive and more widely available MFT versions of adapters available used then its definitely worth splashing out the £18 for one of these. Ditto for anyone who has a Z mount system as Pixco also make an MFT to Z mount adapter with which you can do the same tricks.

You need a blog bro ?

Well it better have 14-stops at least of DR. Achilles heal of the GH line is dynamic range. I’m really surprised the GH5S didn’t improve this more. It’s better, but maybe by only half a stop. The S1H has a solid 14 stops and it shows. Maybe we will see a GH camera with their fabled organic sensor they say is coming to LUMIX with 16 stops.

I'm not arguing that he's a great person, but comparing him to people accused of sexual assault is pretty unfair.

This thread is mostly for me, but I figured that I'd post it instead of just making my own notes as it might be of casual interest to someone. Read at your own peril - this will likely fall down every rabbit-hole available. Still with me? Ok, to catch up to where I am, watch and study these videos.... If you're not lusting after the $40,000 Zeiss Master Anamorphic after watching the first one then go watch them all again before proceeding. I've just sold my car (wasn't using it) so more money for lenses! I use a GH5 and own the Voigtlander 17.5mm f0.95 which I really like, and I've settled on having a super-wide ~8mm and probably ~40mm lengths. The Voigt is pretty rubbish wide-open, but when compared to F2 lenses the Voigt is already stopped-down two stops when they're wide open, so if you're stopping it down a bit then there's real advantages, plus if I ever need the extra exposure (I shoot in available light so that happens sometimes) or want to have the shallow DoF (which also happens) then I can do that. I own the SLR Magic 8mm F4 which is an ok lens, isn't that great optically but isn't terrible either, but it's a drone lens so the ergonomics are completely rubbish. I also own both the Konica Hexanon 40mm f1.8 and Helios 58mm F2 plus an m42 SB. I am not a fan of the swirly bokeh of the Helios (although using it on MFT gets rid of the majority of it on the edges of the frame), and I used the 40mm wide-open on a recent trip and it did not perform well, to put it mildly. Soft as hell as well as all sorts of nasty aberrations. The Voigtlander 42.5mm f0.95 would be stopped down two stops when rendering the same image, so that's something to consider. I've previously identified that I wanted the Laowa 7.5mm F2 lens and was happy with the Konica, but after the Konica had its minor meltdown I'm now wondering if I should replace it with the Voigtlander, or what I should do. Speaking with some pros on other forums about lenses, and especially the guys that know what they're doing in post, the advice was to capture the highest resolution image you can and degrade it in post, or use something like a Black Pro Mist filter. Before I spend any real money on some lenses I figured doing some real research and working out what I really want might be in order, thus this line of thinking and this thread. Next step is to study cine lenses and see what they are actually doing, even just as a reference point.

The Ursa Mini 4.6k, Ursa Mini Pro and Ursa Mini Pro G2 are all on the list. With the Pro G2, Netflix will accept Braw Q5 or above for compressed and 5:1 for uncompressed - I assume this also applies to Pro G1, but it doesn't look like the camera guideline has been updated and so still refers to DNG. UM 4.6k : https://drive.google.com/file/d/13kLJo96znF6cHVATAqNS17C-Uq37dNSz/view UMP 4.6k G1 : https://drive.google.com/file/d/1by7WMRjNB17SG3A8RSgRibfUz0oEMzgx/view UMP 4.6k G2 : https://drive.google.com/file/d/104u9JPYICXrJcaHaQBZ0FnKk4CqWGdVp/view

Should you be celebrating a man who almost shut down EOS's blog in a threat of a lawsuit? A man who got his employee to lie under oath about Lance Armstrong doping? Who lied to the public about the origins of his camera? Who is responsible for the Red Hydrogen, literally the worst tech product of 2018? Who has bullied and banned people left and right in the cinematography forum? How is this man superior to other people? Why are we even discussing him or red? I owned the red one mx. I owned 2 of them. I owned the red epic. It was a great camera. Flawed of course, how long it took to boot up. The hard drive would hang a lot. And it would overheat constantly. That fan noise. The hard to get to bnc input and timecode input. But a great image. They never went past that. The dragon you couldn't expose past 320 ASA. Then every camera after that - the same look, pretty much. The same greenish color cast. If you want to do alternative history Emanuel. Let's say red never happened. As everyone else has said, the canon 5d mark ii happened. The iphone still happened. The need for DSLR's to survive in the face of cell phones taking over their market forced them to make them stills/video hybrid cameras. Would the sony f3 had been so cheap? Would the sony f65 have been so cheap? Would the alexa have been so cheap? Maybe not. But the tech existed. Maybe some other company like black magic would have come in earlier. Maybe JVC or Nikon would have gotten into video and lowered the prices. Maybe the 5d ii would have convince canon to release a 4k camera that does raw earlier in the game. Maybe Arri would have as the sequel to the D21. Or Sony could have since they are leaders in cmos technology. Red One MX shook up the industry, great. Everything after that didn't. So what. That's nothing that special. Jim didn't leave a legacy. He put the guy in charge of his message board as the president. And that's not a good business move. Look what's happened. You think the Gizmodo, I mean the Komodo, is going to save them? From the guy whose greatest creation is dvxuser.com? Why would people buy their cameras now that everyone else has caught up, or surpassed them, with better skintones? Most people I know who are owner operators moved to the alexa mini, or downgraded to the Ursa Mini G2 or FS7 or C300 ii. There's no place for their 30k cameras in this market - it's too tight. And if a 10k camera can do pretty much what a 30k camera can do, and now that red has no "mystique" to its name, why would anyone put 30k into a camera system, especially one that looks like with hydrogen, is not going that well. Move on, man. They are dinosaurs. Never adapted. Chasing 8k over skintones or dynamic range or ISO sensitivity. It's a crazy world, these cameras. The friggin Sigma FP1 does raw full frame for 2k. How does Red compete? With their overpriced redmini mags? How? How are they going to survive? Good riddence to this bully company. And hello to the new guys. Hello to E2. Hello to BMD. Hello again to Panasonic that is adapting ever since it's glory days of the dv100 and hvx100. And hello again to canon with the c500 ii and idx iii that look like they are taking big risks. Hello to the new sony fs7 ii sequel whatever it is called. They are all trying their butts off to stay relevant in the current era. Red, come on, with the Komodo? It isn't even really announced. Just what it is not. What's the price? Does it have internal NDs? Come on. Don't waste your time on them. Time to go. BYE BYE Red.

Matthere thank you so much, the focus button trick worked very well for me! Now my dear pocket 4k is fully working with the newfirmware! Love this forum, love my pocket 4k. Big thanks again matthere!

not sure what to make of all these tests.. all I can say is I've worked on a narrative project shot on a full set of Xeen's and the rendition was superb as is the build quality etc. if I were to invest in cine glass those would be my prime candidates .

It depends on which camera market buyer you where. If you where in the Cine line of 30-100k camera, yes Red was a game changer. But for me anyone lower it was the Large Sensor Dslr market that was a game changer for anyone below that. If we have all the Canon, Sony, Pana large sensor camera in the 5 to 15K it is because of the accident that was the Canon 5d video.

Thought I'd share an EOS M RAW Video in 2.5K Mode with the Russian Cine Lens Vega 7-1 20mm F2: EOS M 2.5K Raw B/W 2.5K ML RAW @ 2.35:1 [2520X1072] - No Letterbox added. ISO 100 23.976FPS 1/48 Lightly Graded in MLV APP, exported in a 4K Timeline [FCPX]

Well, I’m just hoping RED will release some compelling sub $5000 cameras.

Sure not, the guy didn't create Oakley either. Just hype. A perfect hoax. Maybe we too and didn't notice yet.

RED was not the first to offer a cinema camera that shot 4K raw -- that distinction goes to Dalsa. Dalsa introduced their 4K raw camera at the 2003 NAB. At any rate, 4K raw and compressed raw were inevitable and obvious in the cinema world. At the Dalsa 2003 launch, raw files and the megapixels war had already been around for years in the still photo world. So, it doesn't take a genius to simply apply such notions to moving pictures. In regards to RED's wavelet compression, it had already been established in JPEG2000. So, it doesn't take a huge mental leap to merely apply the same compression method to another video format.

Andrew, just a suggestion for an interesting sub topic for your S1H analysis and review, should you have time. Paul at ExtraShot found (see 12:08 in this video) that shooting 6k 4:2:0 and downsampling to 4k in FCPX gave superior results to shooting in 4k 4:2:2 in the camera. In other words, FCPX makes a better job of the downsampling (and notwithstanding the lower color subsampling of the 6k footage) than does the camera on the fly. The implication of this is that, if a user has a computer with sufficient grunt power, they should shoot everything in 6k, even when they don't need to crop in post. The DCI (4k) resulting from shooting in 4k and downsampling in post will be even higher quality than the 'native' (out of camera) DCI 4k. (Paul notes in the comments that he only tested this using FCPX - the quality of downsampling 6k->4k might not be the same with other NLEs...though, logically, it might be that some are even better in this respect...who knows...)

One of the main reasons a lot of cameras like this don’t make the Netflix list is Timecode. The C200 raw is one of the best Images under $20k, but does not have timecode I/O and therefore doesn’t make the list. Netflix officials have even stated that is why it isn’t on the list. Same with Pocket 4k/6k. smart of Panasonic to include it so they can make this list.

Here you go Now shows your work This one was shot by my brother & i done the edit

About bi-nature... Voigtlanders bellow f1.2 are not at all meant to be sharp across frame, nor it is possible without software intervention...At f0.95 they are way more usable in comparison with 10k Leica Noctilux... At f1.4 they are equally or 'sharper' than any of Zeiss Distagons 1.4... Under f1.4 Voigts (i.e. long experienced Cosina's engineers) are using magic of field curvature for stylistic usability, they offer playing with accentuated bluring-background and, proportionally, more pronounced foreground. It is also sort of great know-how which is, say, trait that Mercer mentioned about Zeiss Hollywood. Also, at 0.95 inevitable exists sacrificing of some quality - to achieve totally usable (especially for movie making) center sharpness (which is btw miracle - compare them again with completely bloomed Noctilux or with, say, Meike 25mm 0.95 ), Voigts have strong color shifting that can be corrected in post. Furthermore, Voigts are losing quality of bokeh circle, but keep effect of blooming under wonderful control and highly balanced and original degree at realistic-impressionistic continuum (at least for me). All of that precise calculations involve much higher, more subtle knowledge and years of experience than just to construct properly sharp lens at T2.2 Veydras are very polished, extremely 'honest', but more one-dimensional task accomplished lenses. Remembering, say, El Greco - all of us know that, actually, art and life in all are always matter of aberrations. So, if aberrations are fruit of clever deliberate decisions toward predictable control over achievement, they are closer to art. Voigts are lenses from the ground thought out as one with m43's comparative pluses (mostly for movie making) and minuses (mostly for photography). Also, for Voigts I know for sure, for Veydras it seems as well, that mechanic, used material, quality of glass and their durability are top notch.

In my opinion, you’re looking at this too analytically. Test charts and head turning videos on boring sets can only tell you so much. One of the most important factors in any image is rendering and an MTF chart will not show you that... only your eyes will. For instance, the Veydra vs Zeiss CP.2 numbers you referenced... Take the Zeiss 28mm f/2 lens for example... the Contax version was known as “The Hollywood” due to the way it renders the OOF edges of the frame due to the extreme field curvature. The ZF Classic version is a very similar design as the C/Y version and uses the same glass as the CP.2. Check our this, real world, review of that lens... https://www.google.com/amp/s/blog.mingthein.com/2012/07/19/zf28distagon/amp/ Also look at Cookes or Baltars... they aren’t perfect lenses by any means, but they have character and some of the best films of all time have been shot with them. Anamorphic lenses are revered due to their flaws. Color separation, tonality, 3D Pop, OOF highlights and even flaws... these characteristic can add charm and dimension to your images. They can help you tell the visual story you’re trying to tell.

He's a legend made by himself. Without him, we'd never have the prices as low as we have today. I heard this from the mouth of a Sony VP in person. The story on his health needs which taken him away to his deserved retirement is not new BTW. Just made public now. He's a warrior, this fight has years. He didn't stop, he kept it going. As well his inventive market introductions. Massively distributed. Ahead of his time. Unique master of his craft. An example but for every producer. He is one of the key factors of the digital revolution. We owe him our tools of nowadays. We really should appreciate gratitude. It's disgusting otherwise.

Which is why all roads should lead to Meike for you and your GH5 When the additional focal lengths are released shortly the entire 6 lens set will be available for less than £2500, which is a seriously good deal based on their "similarity" to Veydras. The bigger investment for you though if you went that route would be in adapting to the practicalities of using them, predominantly in terms of using some sort of follow focus. On the upside, with a matched cine set having commonality in terms of focus gear placement, filter thread size means swapping lenses is simpler than when using a disparate bunch of stills lenses. I'd actually say that in terms of adding bulk and conspicuousness to your shooting rig, the Tilta Nucleus Nano wireless follow focus is neither here nor there compared to a small shotgun mic with a furry on it and the difference it will make to your focusing control is well worth it. Of course investing in the Meike's would tie you in to sticking with MFT mount cameras but with BM and Z Cam offering more pure cinema paths should you want a different alternative to your GH5 then its not a particularly bad cul de sac. Well, I say it keeps you tied in to MFT mount cameras but I'll put up a thread later on that actually disproves that

Let's look at what's on the table for ~40mm then. This article compares a number of ~40mm MFT lenses: https://www.lensrentals.com/blog/2018/03/finally-some-more-m43-mtf-testing-are-the-40s-fabulous/ The Voigtlander performed very well, and despite being the worst performer wide-open (which is essentially an un-fair test), was comparable when stopped down to 1.4 which was wide-open for the rest of the pack, it was close to the top of the pack at F2.8, and drew for first place in how flat the field curvature was. I think this bears out the idea that this lens is around the performance of the other high-performance lenses at any given aperture, but can simply open up further than the other lenses. From the commentary in the article I think this isn't something that can be assumed however, so isn't a general rule. This article looks at the Konica Hexanon: https://erphotoreview.com/wordpress/?p=1902 The MTF50 shows that there is an absolutely huge difference when you stop down a couple of stops. This bears out in my experience.

This is the Zeiss CP2 wide-open at T2.1: This is the Xeen wide-open at T1.5: This is the Zeiss CP2 at T4: This is the Xeen at T4: To my eye, both look soft wide open and both look great at T4. Here's their MTF charts: The Xeen is quite obviously far worse than the CP.2 when wide open, yet the test shots appear similar to me. Or, at least, the difference in focal distance between them could account for the entire difference. Relating this back to myself, I find focus to be a hit-and-miss affair so there's not much point nit-picking at something I will almost never completely nail. Stopped down they both improve vastly, both in the charts as well as in the images. In theory the CP.2 has way worse performance due to much greater field curvature, but there's nothing in frame in the test shots, so who knows. I think the Xeen was the worst performing lens wide-open that I saw in the above articles, so not being able to see it in the test images is interesting. To illustrate a point, here's the $40,000 Zeiss Master Anamorphic wide open at T1.9: Not so high resolution either, although I couldn't find an MTF for this lens, the resolution of the others (at least in the centre where we actually have something in focus) is better at T4 than this lens is at T1.9, so this is simply a fact of life. What it does mean, however, is that wide-open resolution isn't the focus, it's resolution at apertures that you will shoot. Just for fun, here's a modified and re-branded Helios 58mm F2 at T4: It obviously has less contrast (the mod removed all the coatings to deliberately make it flare - which it does spectacularly) but the resolution is also there.

Bias can also be by the weight you give the pros and cons of the competing systems. I think it is tough to say for sure how you will feel about it without using it. Yes there are draw backs but nothing comes close to giving internal raw at FF 4k60p with amazing autofocus, pro stills capabilities and pro level ruggedness, to the point where, ye, you can take it to the mountains and film a doco without having to worry about the weather and dust or it malfunctioning. Look how much Sony want to charge you for the Fx9 and still no internal raw and that thing is huge. Gotta give props where it is due.

Some guy came to earth and terrestrials decided to replace their God. The old Olympus has changed, is not worthy anymore. Yet never existed. Bad memory you ungrateful bunch of the same class of humans have.