Leaderboard

Maybe the global shutter Ursa/Production Camera 4k cameras. Relatively limited dynamic range but I always thought the color and look and feel of that camera was exceptional.

Thank you for all the clips, I hope I can take a look at them this evening.

The difference between 3.2k the resolution being used if shooting spherical and 2.8k which is what the Alexa classic sensor uses is pretty small imo. Yes the Alexa Classic is 2k, but its downsampled from 2.8k. If you look at the difference between downsampled 2k from 2.8k and 2.8k native it is pretty much impossible to tell the difference. The benefit of shooting RAW is definitely nice, ARRI raw has more texture than prores. Of course it comes at the cost of a little more grain. I am sure the little extra info in Prores 444XQ is helpful sometimes too. To me ARRI didn't get a big boost until the LF tho. You do notice the extra detail comparing the LF to any of the previous S35 Alexas. Comparing different flavors of 3k is pretty negligible though at least in terms of resolution. I do think 12bit 444 makes a noticeable difference over 10 bit if you push the color at all, mainly with skin tones. just my 2 cents

But Kye, the human eye has evolved, you see. What was more than adequate in 2015 is no longer going to cut the mustard in 2022. Funny how things have changed.

It is interesting that Joe says in the video, they wanted the absolute character of the Kodak sensor to be preserved in-camera, without any noise reduction or introduction of any circuit noise. Just the natural grain from the sensor. So it got me thinking... With HVEC and modern sensors we have a squeaky clean look. It has a lot of noise reduction you can't turn off, and a lot of compression. So if we wanted the colour, character, uncompressed Cinema DNG and film grain of the Digital Bolex... We need to find a modern camera... Because the D16 on eBay now is $6K!! I think the closest I own is the Sigma Fp-L in crop mode. It has the resolution for 2x crop so works with Super 16mm lenses. But any crop from about 1.37x onward gives a very detailed texture to the uncompressed 4K raw.... as it is a 1:1 pixel readout. If you download the frame grab below, and look at the full 4K JPG conversion of my DNG, it is apparent at 1:1 that nothing is being lost and nothing is being added. Especially since this is at ISO 3200 behind a strong ND filter. At lower ISOs it looks a bit too clean to be a Digital Bolex-a-like. However at ISO 3200 it is perfectly on note. What other cameras could we wrangle (with a few tricks) to look like a Kodak CCD? GH5S? S1R 5K? Canon RAW? Nikon Z9? How about our smartphones in Motion Cam?

I refuse to ignore. This thread is clearly superior.

The OG BMPCC is hugely different again, compared to the Digital Bolex and Ikonoskop. The Ikonoskop had the same Kodak sensor as the D16. I shot with both side by side (BM Pocket and Ikonoskop) in Berlin. Whereas the D16 and Ikonoskop have a very particular low-fi look and a lot of "imperfections" in certain conditions from the CCD sensor, the original BM Pocket was far more modern and clean looking, just all round a bit more normal. Still very nice, but it was its own thing and separate to the DB. Joe ran the sensor hot in the D16, basically overclocked it. It also had a much more appealing look undercranked to 16fps in post than a modern CMOS sensor camera. So if we can get even a bit closer to this look, with the help of some tricks and post production I'd be a happy bunny. Yeah. It's very much uncompressed. Cinema DNG is the key to the Fp. Even in 8bit. It doesn't have the squeaky clean and processed look of BRAW and ProRes RAW. I may try the 2K on the Fp-L and see if it's any good. The file sizes in 4K are a bit of an issue. But so is finding, maintaining, keeping and shooting a Digital Bolex lol. I am also curious to hear more about that. The CMOS 'plastic' look could well have something to do with that. I also think it handles white balance and colour temperature completely differently to CCD. There is always an overall slight veiling especially in warmer scenes.

That's the thing, you kept referencing the silver screen and cinema standards so I just thought I'd give further context.. Its like HDR.. I feel it makes much better sense on a device used in daylight than in a dark room. Different medium, different tech and workflows make more/better sense. Context is everything.

Cinema screen is actually not a great example as 85% of theatres in the world are still using 2K projectors (that number was probably even bigger a decade ago). Cable TV in the US aren't even all 1080i with some networks still broadcasting at 720p. That is the main reason why ARRI have been so slow to develop true S35 4K cameras and why DI/editing/finishing have been done on 2K timelines. We often like to put cinema on a pedestal for various valid reasons but truth is that concerning resolution, that whole industry has been lagging behind home entertainment and streaming productions for a minute. The 2014 video I linked already assesses that back then. We simply can't ignore what's been happening on streaming platforms and social media like it or not that's most peoples daily reality and benchmark. So yeah depending on what industry you're in, what you shoot, what your end viewer is displaying on, your storage capacity and bandwidth, what your post tech skills & min/max requirements are: different workflows, different resolutions, different codecs may be used in the pipeline. That is the reason why there are so many options. Heck for some, 8-bit rec709 may still be better than 10-bit log or even 12-bit RAW. So within this diversity of context I don't think we can really blanket one codec or one resolution format as being ok across all scenarios. That said, sure 4K ProRes LT is a pro standard codec, fairly chunky and superior to low bitrate h26x. Its no XQ 444 though. ProRes in consumer hybrids is a great leap forward. Much more practical than RAW in editing sense. On a similar tangent, I also think open-gate has never been so useful. Traditionally for anamorphic shoot but today also serves the purpose of multi-aspect ratio deliveries which is becoming pretty common. Oh I'll believe you that the IQ difference is marginal in between 3.2K & 2.8K and 2.8K & 2K downsampled. However for anamorphic shooting, difference in between the XT's Open Gate 3.4K in ARRIRAW vs 4:3 2K ProRes of the Classic was substantial as the video details. Even though technically they're both the same ALEV sensor with identical characteristics. The LF has a larger than FF sensor shooting up to 4448 x 3096 so yeah that's a major boost in IQ as far as detail but also noise levels which was the biggest con of the OG Alexa S35 sensors imo.

Maybe the AJA Cion? (or the Blackmagic equivalents) So long as you light it carefully.

I second the Sigma fp L. With it's crop zoom function it gives a lot of flexibility for active sensor size. Rolling shutter should improve the more you crop as with any camera. You can shoot 4K at pixel-to-pixel 2.5x crop giving you an effective 14.4mmx8.1mm. Which can crop to a 3.4K if you want to match the 2.8x d-bolex size, but with a 3:2ish aspect. Or with a 2.1x crop it gives a 17.1mmx9.64mm to match the 4:3 height. 2.7x and 2.9x available in FHD but shooting in UHD would probably make more sense to utilize more of the area. All in uncompressed 12bit CDNG of course, and offers more visual aids than most.

Yes, acquisition tried to keep pace with the tech I'm sure, and this was also in the days when cameras didn't downscale in-camera which made oversampling at capture even more important. My point was simply that if a 2K Prores HQ didn't have intolerable macro-blocking when used in a workflow that was projected in multiplex cinemas, that 4K Prores LT with a similar/superior bitrate wouldn't be worse than that. Also, the people in this discussion are pretty unlikely to be shooting for projection on a 590" cinema screen, so a codec with 400Mbps being streamed at 15-25Mbps, LT is probably good enough.... even with our post-millennial biologically superior eyesight 😉

lol... I guess it's just me and my logic again, getting too big for my britches 😛

What's interesting is that the Digital Bolex used a completely separate board for the Kodak CCD sensor internally. This was to avoid introducing noise which would need cleaning up and it is that step in the pipeline that hurts the nuances of a sensor according to Joe Rubinstein. So it might be that with the modern cameras and their single circuit board, there's simply too much pre-processing going on and too much interference with the signal coming back off the sensor, which lends more digital look. It would be lovely to get the look of a Digital Bolex in a modern mirrorless camera. We'll see if we can harangue the X-H2 into looking more 'raw'.

https://we.tl/t-ZnnuboUFed That's another X-H2 ProRes 422 HQ clip in 8K (FLOG 2) Autumn trees at infinity Will be interesting to see how (or if) the processing has changed

I get where you’re getting at with your suggestion as I use a variety of different cameras for stills ranging from expensive Leica M rangefinder to Yashica 35mm film point & shoot to older DSLRs and of course mirrorless. That said I can understand someone with perhaps less experience and funds simply wants one camera body and one lens system. That’s a good place to start too. The EOS R is actually a very decent hybrid despite all the hate it garnished at its release due to the massive 4K crop. It sounds like you enjoy Canon ergonomics, color science, value their AF system and your invested in their lenses. This begs the question, why go through the hassle of changing systems? And why even consider Panasonic if AF is important to you? FYI, I was also an EOS R user with just the 35mm RF and EF lenses and I chose to upgrade to R6 two years ago. Its a massive upgrade as you gain IBIS, oversampled 4K with no crop, 10-bit codec, Clog3 & DPAF2 with eye tracking. It’s a bit of a no brainer if you’re looking to upgrade from an EOS R in that $2K budget. Although the overheating may make that a big no-go in that tropical Brazilian heat. in that case maybe smart to wait for R6 mk2 that appears to be right around the corner. or switch to Sony or Nikon if you can’t wait and wanna stay FF and have great AF. I’d only consider Panasonic if your planning on shooting video with manual lenses..

I wouldn't worry too much about the stills capabilities of a camera (unless you're a very serious professional photographer, in which case you've likely already got firm opinions on what camera to get and not asking here), because long long ago cameras already reached the level of "good enough" for professional work for the vast majority of professional photographers. While it has taken much longer for hybrid cameras to reach that point of "good enough". (I'd say that's only just now happening, now that many are getting 10bit internal) Thus even if you got a very video focused camera (such as a P4K / C70 / FX30 / etc) then you could just for cheap buy a stills camera to use alongside your main camera that's for video. As in my opinion even an old Nikon D700 (only a couple of hundred dollars secondhand!) is "good enough" for the majority of "professional photographers" out there. (unless you're more into say the sports photography niche, in which case a cheap Nikon D500 still is one of the very best you could go for) So if you for instance decided to go with a P4K as your filming camera, you could grab a Panasonic G7 to complement it for stills. Or a cheap Sony a6000 to complement the FX30 for stills. (I disagree about sensor size when it comes to shooting though, and people should just choose the right lens for the job. But anyway... you could say get a cheap cheap Sony a7mk1 for your stills, to use alongside an FX30? Or go nuts with resolution and get a Sony a7Rmk1? There is one on eBay at the moment for US$500)

Here is a link to all the footage. All shot with the xf 23mm f1.4 R LM WR at F4. Iso was at the base iso for each respective flog 2 and the shutter speed was changed to get similar exposure. NR and Sharpening at -4 and no interframe NR. Video levels for Prores and full range for HEVC. Files are named what they are, e.g. XH2 PRHQ is Prores HQ shot on the x-h2. https://drive.google.com/drive/folders/1h7OQtCirDoy9fcxxZaIDBxlJOPEn-Dcx

..if you need AF though Panasonic is probably the worst system of the bunch and a huge downgrade from Canon. Image quality means nothing if you can't hold focus. Best bang for buck is probably XH2 right now. 45MP stills. 8K, 10-bit, ProRes. Phase-detect AF with eye detect. Film simulations. FX30 also super solid for run & gun. Oversampled 4K. AF on par with Canon. 4K120p. 10-bit. LUT support. Top handle with XLRs. But yeah, switching systems is expensive so if you own a lot of lenses probably better to wait for suitable model than switch. APS-C / Super35 seems to be where it's at right now as far as bang for buck in the $2K bracket.

Another vote for the Panny S5. I prefer my S1R as a pure stills machine and for dedicated video work, my S1H, but unless I needed: A: Stellar tracking video AF B: Err, that’s it really, anything else is nitpicking… I doubt there is a better option sub 2k and a mint used one could be picked up sub 1.5k. Or an XH2.

Two very useful sentiments that I try to live by are: If in doubt, don't buy anything If the solution isn't obvious, you don't fully understand the problem