Leaderboard

This seemed timely and relevant to me because of the discussion of documentary stuff in this thread. Some talk about the A cameras used for the most documentaries that made it into Sundance this year. The list is topped by the FX9, the C300 II, and the FS7.

I’ve been playing with the Telnet on my NX1 hack and it shows up in terminal as Samsung Linux. I can navigate the whole system hierarchy I can use vim and I can open files and create them all using Unix like commands. It’s amazing. Gotta actually get a VM of Ubuntu running to play with the source code I just downloaded. I am trying to get the NX 1 to work as a webcam using Live Camera, CamTwist and OBS but though it is recognized I’m Camera Live it just shows a blank/black screen In CamTwist and OBS. Not sure what the solution is but im trying everything I can. This camera still kicks ass!!!

Too true. Arri targets the feature film and commercial industry. Those industries have absolutely no incentive to use BM or anything cheaper. The rental cost of an Arri is one of the smallest line items in their budgets. Why would they experiment with something that saves a few bucks on the rental when they have years of experience, trust, rigging etc all geared around their usuals cameras of choice? You technically could shoot a movie with a BM camera or an FX30 or a bunch of other cameras, but why would you unless you need something small for a specific shot? It's like saying your such and such street car can go the same speed on a drag strip as an F1 car so they're going to dominate the F1 industry here pretty soon. Um, no. Why would they?

I agree with pretty much all of this. Honestly we dumb the conversation down when we just talk about PDAF or CDAF, as if each implementation is equal to one another when that simply isn't true. Look at Fuji. It switched to PDAF what, 6 years ago? Yet it still isn't very good. We also ignore that CDAF's hit rate in stills was pretty much on par with PDAF, meaning the issue was largely video related and that issues like pulsing were issues with CDAF in general. Panasonic built on years and years of fine tuning their auto focusing algorithms and technology, which were always pretty solid, and merely switched how the focusing is done. Do I wish they'd done it earlier? Yes, if only because I got sick of people (mostly people that were never going to use their cameras anyway) complaining about it.

This is a comparison that I did between the internal CDAF of a Pocket 6K versus the lens being driven directly (although it uses the same internal motors) by an AFX. It highlights the general speed issues with CDAF in lower light and lower contrast situations of course but also on when the lens is being driven from near to close targets and its these which are most likely to cause it to not lock and to give up the ghost completely. Despite Panasonic's interpretation being a lot better it can still have these issues in my experience. PDAF isn't immune from this stuff either and in the S5ii which uses a combination of both PDAF and CDAF I've had it struggle in lower light. Low light or absolutely no light doesn't bother a LIDAR based system like the AFX in the slightest of course 😉 As I've said numerous times, the fully sentient AF system doesn't exist and an operator chosen combination of AF-S, AF-C and manual focus is still the one that yields the best results.

I used the Animal Eye AF on my S5ii the other day for the first time and whilst it was reliable in stills, in video it was certainly less so as these frame extracts show. When it worked, it worked well. But in a lot of cases it preferred his nose. This was with the Panasonic 85mm f1.8 so there isn't a massive margin for error but it also has to be said that Rolo is what can politely be described as a lazy little fucker so he's not exactly doing a lot of leaping about to overly tax the detection and tracking. Maybe it thought his nose was a built in Owl and it was picking up its eyes.

Priority 3, actually going out and shooting instead of staying home agonizing over which camera to buy…and then “I’m gonna hold off” for the next generation despite the latest and greatest just being launched because some random YouTuber who also couldn’t get out of their bedroom, said something about a camera they did not understand. The amount of spreadsheet procrastination some folks have… Of course, this does not happen with anyone here 😂

I totally agree that BM cameras are really good for the small budget production / owner-operators - great image quality for modest investment. As soon as you get into the world where you're paying people minimum award wages then camera rental costs become insignificant and you're better off going with whatever the standard is for your genre (Alexa for narrative / studio, and Sony or Canon for doc work) either because the people that are involved will be familiar with them or that getting familiar with them would be a plus for getting chosen for larger projects.

an interesting comment: "I recently shot a commercial project using an Alexa 35 LF with Arri Master Primes for my A-Cam and the BMCC FF with Sigma 24-70mm photo lens as my B-cam. When I put the two shots by side and graded to match, I’m just saying the images were almost indistinguishable in quality. It just is what it is. The game has changed now and the rest of the industry has caught up to manufacturers like RED and ARRI if you’re talking strictly about image from the sensor. And what differences are there are definitely nowhere near worth the added price you’d pay for the RED. It’s just true."

IBIS on Panasonic M43 cameras will always be better than the IBIS of their full frame counterparts because of the smaller sensor. Still the IBIS in the original S5 was very good. The S5II cut the IBIS gap, but it still couldn't compete with the GH6, G9 or the GH7. Panasonic full frame IBIS is still head and shoulders above everyone else though.

I'll have a tattoo with this link 🙂

Yes, I'm me on here and the designer for them when I'm not on here! The AFX sold its production run out (the webpage shows the original Android/Tilta fusion product) and then the COVID supply chain nonsense kicked in which hit us over a couple of components so we paused another run and then have now moved on to other products. Well, its moot now but with an AFX you always have a very accurate tape measure sitting on top of the camera 🙂

On a underwater image forum we are debating on this. On YT there are countless tutorial and examples on its use for underwater photography but zero for underwater video. So far nobody showed up with some feedback...

I say this as a S5II X owner... a lot of people saying this (and there are more than one) are Panasonic shills. The stabilization is great, it's why I own the camera, but we're getting a bit ridiculous. Less youtube shill videos plz.

A lot of the rules are different if we're talking photography vs videography. I've heard generally good things (and had a good experience, even with Fuji) for animal eye detect in photo mode. I've had almost nothing but heartbreak with Canon and Fuji using animal eye AF in video mode. I just switched to centered focus point in those cases and didn't spend a lot of time messing with it. It's hard to say what others have done when having a good or bad experience doing it. 🙂

I have this in the AFX in differing combinations. You can set four focus points and then transition to them manually with the stick on the controller (or the Tilta wheel if you have connected that to the AFX) or with different transition times including one called "NATURAL" which is based on the difference between your current focus point and the target. The transition times also work when it is in AF-C mode to keep the transitions as smooth or as instant as you prefer. You can also use the first two focus points to set up a ring fenced area between the two where the AF system is only active for targets between the points. And then of course there is the focus recorder function where you can do real time record of up to two minutes of focus movements using any combination of live LIDAR acquisition in AF-S or AF-C, the four focus memory position recalls and manual focus and then play it back as it was recorded. As I say, its the combination of all differing methods that, to me, makes the difference between a type of focus and a focusing system.

In a contrast detect camera, the camera can tell how in or out of focus an area of the sensor is, but not which direction is more in focus (closer or further). In a phase detect camera, the camera CAN tell which direction is more in focus. A CDAF focus system picks a direction randomly (nearer or further), and goes the whole way looking for focus, and often it would pick the wrong way, and that's why that old P&S camera from 2010 would spend 3 seconds racking the whole focus range before zero-ing in on the focus, despite the fact it was only a little bit off. That's it. That's the ONLY difference between the two. What you are talking about is differences in the mechanism that CHOOSES what to focus on. A PDAF system can randomly choose to focus on the background just as easily as a CDAF system can - the PDAF system will just do it slightly more confidently because it knows exactly how to get there and roughly how far away it is. Apart from the Panasonic DFD pulsing issue (which is a side-effect of CDAF), I have not seen a focus error that was CDAF related in probably years. The issues with focus today are that it chooses to focus on the wrong thing, or on nothing at all. This has nothing to do with CDAF or PDAF. It's a whole other thing. Sure, PDAF cameras focus much better overall, but it's not the PDAF, it's something else in the AF implementation. CDAF and PDAF are a very minor part of the whole AF mechanism.

For continuous AF, it absolutely does. Panasonic spent a lot of years on CDAF/DFD and AF on the GH6/S5/S1/S1H/etc was still not even nearly as reliable as Canon/Sony. There's a reason that they finally took whatever steps were needed to enable PDAF on their modern bodies (and from everything I've heard, AF on the S5 II and the GH7 is fantastic). Some people say that with a bunch of tweaking, they could get the CDAF to be acceptable. That's all fine and good, but Canon and Sony users take the camera out of the box, enable continuous AF and human eye detection, and watch the camera instantly lock on to a subject and stay locked on (some caveats around terrible lighting and multiple subjects in the frame apply). (And yes, of course PDAF = PDAF+CDAF, but it should be understood that use of the phrase PDAF is usually intended to be inclusive of the two technologies) (And yes, Canon isn't PDAF, but DPAF, but DPAF is for practical purposes very similar to PDAF, as both are based on parallax) One's experience with this, though, is likely to vary based at least somewhat on the working aperture. If you're consistently shooting deeper DOF (like an 50mm at f/8 FF equivalent), the pulsing and occasional refocusing will be less noticeable than if you're shooting with shallower (like a 50mm at f/2). Simply implementing PDAF doesn't guarantee parity (see: Red and Fuji), but it certainly puts companies on the right path to it. And as BTM's photos demonstrate, a lot of the subject detection automatic modes on modern cameras need work, even for those vendors whose PDAF is solid.

this guy tested s5ii using the latest firmware. his conclusion is that if the talent is just walking, s5iix ibis using e-stab high at s35 crop can be gimbal like. the footage seems smooth to my eyes. this is really good. as I remember that the steadicam can only do 50mm well, over 50mm it is hard to stabilize.

Indeed, I'd only forget the GoPro H12 and would wait to see what the next version will offer in a couple of months unless you go with the Back-Bone mod or buy the Ace Pro then, much more interesting really : ) FX30 is unbeatable to my book comparing with the S9 but what do I really know when I am just buying it these days? ;- )

In certain gigs, the higher the best. Affordable gear doesn't help to maximize the price of the wages. And this is actually what is going on a lot on this plot why the most expensive gear is invariably a good choice ; ) But when you operate just for the sake of the art or strictly making a living from the art, that premise doesn't put food on your table per se. To someone who has already produced a feature film shot on Arri which has been praised and supported by the mainstream of the British Film industry, both routes can really help but the latter always come as secondary and under certain circumstances, never as primary. So, it's a bit upside down the idea people outside tend to retain. - EAG

Absolutely. Priority 1 is getting the shot. Priority 2 is making the shot that you get a better one. You can't edit what you didn't capture.

Yeah, it's truly a pain, I always tend to avoid rentals because of that, no need at all when Blackmagic cameras coexist for a fraction of the cost of other cinema cameras : ) IMO This manufacturer delivered what RED promised :- ) Glad Arri is there but Blackmagic Design is the one indies have to praise. In this business makes a whole difference :- )

I love these discussions - it reminds me how people have almost no understanding of how anything works. CDAF vs PDAF has almost nothing to do with the AF performance of modern cameras.

Brands have no place in the indie world or should not have. - EAG :- )

It's a good question indeed... : ) Much appreciate the serious tone too I fully concur for the subject matter. That said, I guess the OP does it for fun : P As much as I like to think on topic since 90s at least... And moreover, teaching and guiding some other people about it. And even to be paid for it for three decades already with credits along mainstream players. I salute OP's attitude not all the time when nonsense pops up such as those claims about 24fps death against the rise of 4K/60p as a specific look of today if any. Let's call it a matter of taste though LOL ; ) However, looks to me some fresh individual with a promising future ahead for the passion and commitment involved. So, kudos there for that free, smart and brave spirit which this industry has been made from, let alone the indies world and this corner. :- )

This is why. I've heard from the pros that at the first production meeting of a large project, like movie or TV show, there is a moment where someone asks "what are we shooting on?" and if the answer is "Alexa" then everyone breathes a sigh of relief, and if it's not "Alexa" then there is an anxious conversation about it. If you have the most awesome camera in the entire universe, and no-one has ever worked with it before, it's still a risk to the production. "Alexa" is the answer that tells everyone there is one less risk in the project.

I think you are right, in big budget feature, the established workflow is already very good. a camera with 10 bit 422 or 12 bit raw, steadicam, dolly, jib, lighting, etc are actually good enough. as the environment is controlled, I doubt that alexa35's 17 stops dr is truly essential over the 12-year old Alexa ev except the newer cameras may be less prone to onsite errors.

I do news and events. I am an one man band.

Surprisingly the Pocket 3 also has a 1 inch sensor.

Also, the 'n-stops of IBIS' spec is a measurement of how much reduction in movement there is of the sensor when that movement is within the movement range of the IBIS mechanism. There are two problems with this: When people do IBIS tests, the movement that remains in the footage is almost 100% of the time due to the camera shake being larger than the movement range of the mechanism. So this 'n-stops' no longer applies. Different cameras have different ranges of movement of their IBIS mechanism, and therefore, different levels of ability to compensate for camera movement. When you understand that this is what is going on, you realise the 'n-stops of IBIS' measurement is a practically meaningless number that doesn't really predict the level of performance of different cameras.

serious question, what is your background zlfan? you keep making the same comparison threads and theyre all pointless. if you’re good at making moving images, all you need is a camera with at least a decent codec (10 bit 4:2:2, and ideally with a log profile). Once that threshold is met, you can start thinking about the actual important facets of the job. maybe documentary based dps will go towards newer hybrids for their assisting features, but other ones will probably never care. If you’re shooting in a context where you get to call yourself the dp, the implication is there already: you’re the head of a department. You already have an assistant delegated to getting the focus right. Ibis will never be as good as a dedicated means to have certain camera movements

af, dr of gh7 is as good as fx30. kudos to gh7.

Yes, it's a version of the 'no one gets fired for buying IBM' situation - it's all about minimizing the (large) financial risks in high-end production. A very different situation from a one/few person production company doing filming and post-production in-house with their own relatively low-cost workflow (e.g. using Blackmagic cameras and software).

This was true with RED and yet it barely made any penetration into the industry. It almost makes you think that the image coming out of the camera isn't the thing that determines the fate of the brand.....

I am beginning to develop an allergy and even hatred toward everything I see on YouTube. What a bullshit title. People who have never filmed shit other than cats or begonias in the backyard. I, with my GH5, am delighted with its performance underwater and on land.