Leaderboard

All. The. Time. "Hey kids, this week we are comparing Camera A with Camera B and Camera A will have a fast wide prime lens (because that's all I could get my hands on) and Camera B has a kit zoom lens (because that's all I could get my hands on). So guys, let's go out and shoot! My back wall! And my cat!" I suppose in one way, 'real world tests' are of folks back walls and cats as that's all they seem to shoot. Maybe there's a market for this kind of thing...

kayleerumors is reporting!!!!

I did post that here....my favorite was when the Canon rep said IBIS isn't perfect either because when the sensor floats to the edges of the IBIS system lens distortion could make the image less clear. Funny he didn't mention the IBIS wobble problem that only Canon seems to have.

Not sure what you mean. I don't see a correlation in between resolution and sensor size. What computer specs and Resolve version are you on? Because I can tell you that on a cheap $999 M1 MacBook Air, I can drag and drop an 8K Canon RAW file in Resolve 17.3 (which is optimised for M1 Macs) on a 4K timeline, do some tweaks, add some LUTs and I get 100% playback with zero dropped frames. That's on the most entry-level Mac you can buy today.

Here's a suggestion, dump the EOS R5 and get a 5D Mark III with Magic Lantern RAW DNG, or a Blackmagic Pocket Cinema Camera 4K with original firmware 😉

I disagree about them being camera related. The whole idea of a vND is that they act as a colour-neutral filter to simply let through a proportion of light. Any NEUTRAL density filter will attenuate all frequencies of light in equal proportion. We know they're not perfect and this results in colour shifts, however, all cameras 'see' in the same basic RGB colours. There can be very slight differences between which frequencies of light different manufacturers sensors are sensitive to, however these will be very very small differences and if a filter is so crazily built that it's very different for one camera than another then you'd want to avoid it at basically all costs as its colour response would be spectacularly non-neutral. Here's the plot comparing a range of digital cameras - not much difference: Source: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/342113086_Introducing_the_Dark_Sky_Unit_for_multi-spectral_measurement_of_the_night_sky_quality_with_commercial_digital_cameras

Yeah the benefit of the 444 version as well is being able to do 60p out of a single SDI. The Sony menus are a pain but the files are amazing to work with. It doesn't like overexposure but it's phenomenal in the shadows. The camera is truly amazing in low light. I honestly would pick it above newer full frame options. The color and noise is so much nicer.

Of course its about lenses.. AND how they interact on a sensor size. Going FF for the Ozark DP allowed him to rehouse and use Leica R glass with the same feel as on 35mm film. No need to hunt down an impossible to find 23mm f0.95 equivalent just to get the standard 35mm f1.4 FoV/Dof look. And yes I know all about Voigtlander but that is just one speciality lens maker. Speedboosters are another common trick to achieve FF but then we're really talking "faux-full-frame". Going FF opens you up to fast wides from all popular lens makers from all periods of time. And like I said earlier it's not just about DoF. A 23mm has more distortion than a 35mm. Both in FoV & perspective. In the end it's subjective, again I am not a FF elitist when it comes to video/film. I also love Super35 and the thousands of modern classics shot on Alexas, REDs, Varicams etc.. But there is a convenience of just popping on any FF lens and the focal length aperture is what it is. no math involved.

The only real thing is the cat!

I don't know if anyone else has seen it, but presume some have and that is the series VOIR on Netflix. OK, it's not uber-high brow viewing but more an upmarket piece of fluff, but I'm enjoying it. The tag line is 'for the love of cinema' (or something along those lines). I just watched I think Episode 4 the other day which was a piece about cinema vs TV. All pretty obvious really...but at the same time, sometimes you need something really shoving in your face for it to click. The difference between the TV shows and the movie versions was HUGE. The TV show that span off into the movie Heat. The Crown 'TV' series vs the movie about HRH, The Queen. The production levels of some of the series on Netflix or Prime etc is in growing proportion, insane. Visually stunning. Which reminds me of that little S1H sci fi short film, admittedly shot with gazillion dollar lenses, but it's 'Hollywood' level visuals. Budget budget budget, I know. Manpower. Lighting. Yada yada, - the camera is almost the least important component these days. Maybe has been for some time...

It's still easy to spot an object sliding around in the frame, especially if it's supposed to be fixed to the ground. And motion capture usually means capturing the animation of a person, ie how their arms, legs, and face move, and we're especially adept at noticing when a fellow human moves incorrectly. So for foreground character animation, the accuracy has to also be really high. I believe that even with high end motion capture systems, an animator will clean up the data afterwards for high fidelity workflows like you would see in blockbusters or AAA video games. The repo I posted is a machine learning algorithm to get full body human animation from a video of a person, as opposed to the traditional method of a person wearing a suit with markers tracked by an array of cameras fed through an algorithm someone wrote manually. It has shockingly good results, and that method will only get better with time--as with every other machine learning application! Machine learning is the future of animation imo. For motion tracking, Vive is exceptional. I've used a lot of commercial VR headsets, and Vive is top of the pack for tracking. Much better than the inside out version (using builtin cameras instead of external sensors) of even Oculus/Meta's headsets. I don't know what the distance limit is, I've got my base stations about 10 ft apart. For me and my room, the limiting factor for a homemade virtual set is the size of the backdrop, not the tracking area.

It does come down to taste at the end of the day. Personally speaking I think sensor size and a particular lens combination is 80% of what defines the cinematic look. Other stuff can only spoil it or require workarounds to improve (like moire, 30fps, or limited dynamic range). Even then, the other things can work to the advantage of certain material. YouTubers like 30fps because it gives pre-recorded videos a more 'live' broadcast feel. Whether you choose to shoot Super 16mm with a vintage lens, or full frame with a clinically sharp modern lens, or prefer medium format lenses, or even full frame lenses on medium format that cover, or anamorphic lenses on Super 35mm, is purely a matter of taste. Personally I like them all for different projects. What DPReview Chris is saying isn't factually wrong about equivalence and matching a similar look across three different sensor sizes, but the sweeping conclusion he makes from it is wild. Just because he was able to make medium format look similar to APS-C at F1.8, his conclusion is basically "what's the point of medium format, nothing special about it"

I was having this same/similar conversation with a camera student doing some basic tuition yesterday. 2/3rds sensor bridge camera with built in zoom wondering why "even at f18 the pics weren't sharp?!" There are limitations to everything and providing you understand what those limitations are.. I noticed an 'aesthetic difference' switching from 16mp Olympus 4/3rd sensor to 24mp Fuji XH1 1080 to 26mp Fuji XT3 4k and the again moving to Panny S5/S1H 4k full frame. But what is this 'aesthetic difference'? Hard to put in words isn't it and we all have different tastes... Plus it's not just the camera, but the lens, any filters, your technique, the settings, the software used for productions, your own personal grading, the calibration of your monitor, the upload resolution, the quality of their viewing device. The variables are enormous but the one thing I don't think anyone can argue against is that the bigger the sensor/film stock used, with lens choice and other factors being more or less 'equal', there is a fairly distinctive difference in look. I'm drawn ever more to the larger sensor look. There's just 'something' about it that appeals to me.

I have updated my 2018 article that still gets a lot of traffic including from this forum to reflect the new codecs. Note I only look at recording on card not on external devices nor RAW https://interceptor121.com/2022/01/24/panasonic-gh5m2-and-s-series-demystifying-movie-recording-settings-2022-update/ I hope you find it useful if you have an S series or GH5M2

I'd be curious to see which tests you're talking about that get different results. Not questioning that you've seen it, but curious as to what other factor is probably causing what you saw. The quality of camera comparison tests is very very poor, even with professional cinematographers testing out high-end cameras. One of the things these people love to do is dial in 5600K on each camera and just assume that's the same WB, and when you look at the footage it's clearly no-where near the same. They then talk about what they're seeing and completely ignoring the fact they've stuffed up the whole test. Other people do that and then WB in post, but this ignores the colour science that might be applied if the footage wasn't shot in RAW. I see basic errors that invalidate tests time and time again. What you saw was probably someone messing up the test like that. There's a reason that R&D departments of huge companies have enormous budgets - doing proper testing where everything is controlled properly is extremely difficult and is called "science" and is an entirely different field of study that even professional scientists get wrong much of the time, let alone cinematographers who may well have never even studied science in high-school, let alone understand the fundamentals of experiment design and the scientific method.

No, they will perform exactly the same , - the variable is with different sensors not with the filter. A crap filter will always be a crap filter no matter how good the sensor is. It's no different to putting cheap Chinese remould tires (filters) on your Porsche (camera body) with it's 5k worth of upgraded alloys (lenses). The ONLY outcome is less performance/handling/braking, - nothing but negatives except in one single regard, - you paid less money for your cheap tires/filters. And let me just clarify something about the Gobe filters... I said they were 'the best' of the cheap filters I tried but 'the best' doesn't = good. They were OK at most. A bit more colour shift than I'd ideally like and with the VND's, especially at the stronger end. Would I use them now? Nope. Would I recommend them? Nope. But as with most things, there does tend to be a compromise and that compromise is often quality vs cost. I've gone somewhere down the middle with the Freewells because in my opinion, they are more than good enough for my needs and though not cheap at about 100 Dollars/Pounds/Euros, are a good investment for my needs. Try a Gobe by all means, but maybe from somewhere like Amazon with a returns policy and if it's good enough for your needs, then great. But if not, you can return it and get something better?

I've tried all kind of different set ups and in the end it came down to having: Nisi 1/8th mists on all my video designated lens of which I have 3, plus 2x Freewell VND (2-5 stop) slightly over-sized so step up rings on the mist filters so the VND's can be screwed on or off as required. I went screw on instead of magnetic in the end as I use the VND's all day long until we hit dusk/the point when they are no longer required/ISO is getting pushed higher. Mists all the time for consistency whether in daylight or after dark, indoors or out...because they do just take that digital edge off 4k footage. On my stills camera, no filters ever, but considering maybe getting a CPL again for some landscape work... I have also played with a system of 'how it would work if I used my cameras in a true hybrid style', ie, flipped all day long between stills and video with the same cameras. For that system, I'd use primes instead of a mix of primes (video) and fast zooms (stills) and use the flip up Tilta system with Freewell VND's with built in mist. So I'd just flip up the Tilta/VND when shooting stills and flip it back down when in video mood. Not much of a faff at all but it does look a bit rubbish having what looks like an over-sized gunsight on the end of your lens when in photo mode!

As soon as you export to something Resolve would need to process the RAW. I wish there would be a tool that can generate a cRaw frame out of a CRL video file. As I process video and photo differently and I do a lot of frame extraction this is how I do: - In Resolve on a 8k timeline I do select the CRL and then the frame that I want hit I and then O so basically mark the a single frame and drop it to the timeline, repeat for each frame that I want. - Render the 8k timeline as 16bit Tiff - Edit the Tiff in Adobe Camera Raw - I also have the canon LUTs installed in Adobe Camera Raw - Ev final edit in photoshop if needed I set the camera raw panel in resolve to not apply any sharpening. If you need a big wb change you need to do it in Resolve up front, the rest I can do all in ACR and I’m quite happy on how much processing I can do on the 16bit Tiff. For video I do everything in Resolve I see no point in doing CRL -> Tiff -> ACR for video…

I am not sure I will ever look at a Cocktail the same again! 😬 Only the British.

I'm about to invest in either the Kase, Freewell or K&F mag filter system and replace all my screw on and 100mm filters with one system, just can't decide which one. Being able to mix and match between ND/CPL/Mist and so on is a huge plus. The magnetic thing looks like a great solution for run and gun field work. Just trying to decide on which system has everything I need and such and do the numbers with step up rings, extra caps and all the bits. Chris

To be clear there was not much overheating to begin with on EOS R5 original edition, it was a fake timer and initial firmware didn't even read the internal temps. Canon RAW is a very difficult codec to edit, I'd much rather have BRAW in Resolve or ProRes RAW in FCPX. These major NLEs aren't interested in supporting Canon RAW or making it work well as Blackmagic wants you to shoot BRAW with one of their products and Apple want you to shoot ProRes RAW. So I would rather impale both my eyeballs on cocktails sticks than shoot 8K RAW 60p on the EOS R5 C, just so you know 🙂 Can't make enough, shortage of raw materials like magnesium, worldwide chip shortages, lead times of 2 years on basic processors, and more.

You know that thats been said over and over again for several years now. But, you know whats funny... eventually... for as long as I've been on these forums... on an individual level (I don't know about the rest of you all)... the need to argue about tech dies down, and for me atleast the tech outpaces my initial arguments and I want to go out and shoot more often... You got to be humbled by the advancements... think about what you are coming from... I'm coming from the 7D and 5D Mark 2 era... and all I wanted was 4K/24p and 1080/120p - look where it is now. I never asked for IBIS or Video AF.... I never asked for DR over 12. <- These are just bonuses. I know people would be surprised when I say this... but I've never used IBIS and none of my cameras have IBIS (I still use a tripod, a 4ft slider and for special cases a 4ft crane - I borrow an 8 ft crane from a friend).

@Hannes Famira Afaik, with the 444 RGB upgrade the F3 spits out 10 bit 444, with choice for either Slog (1:) or Rec709, so no linear 12bit+. High quality 10bit Log with a sufficient codec equals or betters 12bit linear Raw, if I got Alister Chapman right, who has done tests with the FS700 and FS7 regarding that. You can read it on his website. I found one source, stating for 12bit output but that's one vs a majority ofsources. 444 does not for higher framerates than 24p I think, for sure not higher than 30p. You need a recorder like Pix, Odyssey or Cinedeck for 444. Blackmagic does 422 though. With the 444 RGB upgrade one can record up to 60p in 10bit 422 to a 3G Blackmagic VA and the other recorders as well. People have stated the 422 material is very good.

With the external Pix recorder, (like the one above) and the 444 model, it possible to record 12 bit 444 ProRes files. I’m not sure if this works in 60p though. Honestly though, the color depth on the F3 is fantastic. I was always super impressed with the 10 bit ProRes files.

Hi all, I have invested much time to investigate on the monitoring and ISO behavior of the fp. Finally in combination with the Ninja V I have found a working solution for me which gets both the monitoring picture and the metering right. Basically after reading through your posts I understood that the fp is ISO invariant and has only two native ISO values available for metering and recording. (ISO 100 & ISO 3200) Others are digitally amplified. False color screen with the Ninja V is working on both of these ISO values to meter the correct exposure. However as a lot of you have mentioned the Rec709 monitor view is only showing the correct picture in ISO 100. The 3200 setting will be overexposed and useless. After several tests I have figured out that if you set the Ninja V to PQ the ISO 3200 screen will look correct. Different story for ISO 100, but this can be tricked if you select ISO 400 in camera. Screen will look exactly the same now for both ISO values. Metering for ISO 100 is unaffected, since the false color mode is only showing the values for ISO 100. Since the recorded ISO values of the Ninja V are pushed into Final Cut Pro X you will get an overblown picture in Rec709, BUT and this is really nice, if you select ISO 100 instead of ISO 400 and ISO 640 instead of ISO 3200 everything will look as expected. Correctly metered and captured. Remember, in the additional manual of the fp in regards to the ISO behavior, Sigma is mentioning ISO 100 and ISO 640 for photos... If you need to work with Zebras the correct settings are for ISO 400 => 55% and for ISO 3200 => 60% if you want to avoid anything in the 100% range. You could go slightly higher as the fp has some more headroom over 100 IRE. Quite a lot of hassle if you ask me, but once you have got used to this you will get a nice picture on both. Hoping this will help some of you 🙂