Leaderboard

I very much prefer the image of the OG S5 over the S5II X, but people really make a mountain out of a molehill when it comes to the "worse" image. It's really not that bad. In the year I've had it not one client or viewer has complained about the image; in fact it has been the exact opposite! I feel like cameras have plateaued so now people over analyze and overstate every little thing. But virtually all of this stuff doesn't matter to the audience that we are creating these images for. Anyone with any discernible talent will be able to take the S1RII and create compelling images with it. That bride is going to love the pictures you take, the corporate client is going to be ecstatic with the talking head interviews you shoot, the MMA school is going to be psyched with the promotional video you film, etc. As long as it's in focus, the colors are okay, and it's framed well, these folks aren't going to really care if it's a little noisier than the R5II or if the rolling shutter is slightly worse than the A7RV. I don't know how it is where you all live, but there are literally people making money using cheap Canon Rebel DSLRs and kit lenses in my area. I see friends post their wedding pictures, their kid's senior portraits, baby pictures, and all of that stuff on Facebook all of the time. Most of the time these photographers aren't even good at what they do, put people I know still go crazy over them and post these photos they paid for proudly on social media! These photographers still get paid work, not just because they are cheap (that certainly helps!) but because the average person's standards aren't all that high. That's not to say that we should lower our standards, just that we should remember the big picture (no pun intended) and stop worrying about the small things that aren't going to matter to 99.9% of our clients/audience.

@eatstoomuchjam super interesting, both the analysis of the analysis and that the cameras are "plagued" in the same way. In another video (Cam Mackey maybe?) when he discussed the sensor relationship, he thought the readout speeds on the R4D were faster but seemingly not. I haven't heard of DPs decrying the R4D as unusable. I feel very confident in the S1Rii and as someone who ultimately didn't want the additional expense of switching to systems (to Nikon) with lensing, speed lights, etc. the argument that Panasonic is "behind the curve" and what have you is simply mute. It is what it is and this camera gets so much right - some of it in novel ways - that will make my work so much easier and of higher quality. If Panasonic via firmware improve RS via the ability to select a 1.1 crop at 24/30p when desired and improve thermal mgt over time, all the better. But on the latter point, I already have my workaround for interviews. And frankly, both the Z8 and Z6iii have their own compromises. IF there is a Z7iii with the improved autofocus and a non-stacked sensor, then, we'll see. It also wouldn't surprise me if the Z7's shift toward a higher megapixel count of 60+ to better differentiate from the Z8. but blah-blah-blah I am looking forward to getting past all of this speculative terrain and just getting to work with this new body.

I kind of agree, but 2 things initially spring to mind. Thing A, a roll of film would need to revert back to costing 5 dollars instead of whatever it costs to buy & develop these days. Thing B, good luck trying to get this implemented. I feel the same about the other side of my own work, ie, in photography. I would LOVE to go back to being a pure film photographer but the single reason why I do not is a simple one and that is financially it would not fly today. Why, because around 75% of my turnover per job would go straight back out of the door and have to go on buying & processing film and at today's rates. I'd be out of business. Or double my rates and also go out of business because no one booked me. And then 2 other things. Thing C = not all older movies look great. Some...a lot even, look shit to my eyes. Thing D = not all modern movies look shit. Some...a lot even, look superb to my eyes. Summary, I think there is too much rose tinted spectacle nostalgia about 'The Good Old Days' and that everything today is trash. Everything today is not trash, - it's just different times. I am currently re-watching Ripley on Netflix. To my eyes, it is one of the most superb and cinematic creations ever made. Arguably it is not a movie per se, but a series, but actually it's a 6 hour movie in 8 parts. Almost every single frame looks superb. It's a modern day film noir that makes most older film noir look incredibly dated. OK, some of it is actually CGI. The boat scenes with (no spoilers), Tom & Dickie has a huge amount, but that's just a tool available to the modern filmmaker. Anyway, just my opinion. They also make a lot of shit today. Probably 19+ out of every 20 movies released today I would not wish to see, but they do still make some gems when the right people are involved.

Since we're still talking about Gerald's rolling shutter nonsense with the S1R II, it reminded me that he did a review of the R4D 8K (which, again, has either the same or a very similar sensor). Note that DJI paid him to do tests on it. Then note how his discussion of dynamic range is actually very measured, sane, and accurate and without dwelling on things. In its 8K DRE mode with 30ms rolling shutter, it's basically "this is too slow for some people and content, but for a lot of people, it'll be absolutely fine." And that review was on a camera that was made to move around and to be used handheld. He even goes on to say in the conclusion how it's a "best of both worlds option" since it gives the user a choice between great DR or low rolling shutter.

Anyone here specialize or enjoy documentaries? My wife and I made a doc for our small community and were wondering if it had any viability beyond in-town screenings at the local film fest. https://www.dropbox.com/scl/fi/gorqbss1yxq6lufl81x44/HAWK_WATCH_SCREEN_DRAFT.mp4?rlkey=x5d8vcd4igr3bix0cdsgajq0b&st=mt1xzunz&dl=0 The 1st draft here is still loosey-goosey, but if you're so inclined, take a look and see if the story intrigues you enough to say, "Yeah, you might be able to get this out there other places." We feel it's such niche topic that distribution isn't much of a reality, but maybe being niche is a positive in a certain way --and with a significant cut down it could have opportunities? Not sure. As one work on these things one gets rather myopic. As you might imagine, feedback from folks in our local community is too biased. They're just happy to see themselves, colleagues, and friends in a film. Any advice is welcome if you have time to watch.

Official EOSHD chat thread for the arts and cinema.

Might be a bit of survivor bias here. The older movies that were shot on film might seem to be of a nicer IQ standard, but those are the ones that are still acknowledged. As an dude that went to the local 1$ 'grindhouse' theater rather regularly as a kid, I assure you that the quality of the image for the forgettable films were often nothing remarkable. However, I will say that the darker, deeper, contrasty look that was in fashion among better cinematographers back then is something I miss. Less is more. Too much detail in a scene can be a detriment at times. All that dynamic range often is not needed. Spielberg's West Side Story looked remarkable and like shit simultaneously, imo.

I've noticed a bit of a trend with Gerald... Provoke the nerds for clicks and then back pedal furiously when the PR team get upset.

What the fuck is the skipping rope test telling us?

Watching that last video I came to the opposite conclusion - maybe because I watched most of it with the sound off so I didn't have to hear Gerald's commentary. My observations were: 1. The base rolling shutter is fine and the criticisms amount to hysteria. The 15ms shots looked better, sure, but only because you're comparing back to back. No viewer in the real world would care. 2. *Panasonic has provided multiple modes that allow you to mitigate RS*. Amazing that isn't the the takeaway. You can get decent read speed in a pinch, you just have to make some (minor) compromises. 3. Don't do panning shots with telephoto lenses. If Robert Altman super-zoom pans are your jam, then the S1RII sucks. I like how the first thing the camera guy Gerald wrangled along said was 'I mainly do dolly shots so rolling shutter doesn't matter to me' and then had to come up with some debilitating circumstance for bad RS. If you listen to Gerald's commentary then you get a negative take-away. If you just use your eyes you see a really capable and flexible camera.

So the forum is pretty good at the moment thanks to some spicy discussions, it would be boring if we all agreed all the time, but I also think we should encourage people to come back - big names from before like Mattias Burling , Dave Maze, they are missed. Maybe we could occasionally drop them a note to say so. I can't promote the forum myself, it just looks like I am spamming people with my blog. Maybe that's where you all come in 🙂 Would some of you be willing to post a few links here and there in popular Reddit groups, on DPReview and on social media groups? It would supercharge the place and get us noticed more... Then we'd have some great discussions with new people, and regain some control over the camera community in an independent way, rather than everything being hoovered up by the big US social media giants who are opening supporting a fascist regime at the moment. Never been a better moment to get our independence back from social media. Mark Zuckenberg and those like him are pure evil. The forum way is a better way. It offers everyone here a higher profile and higher involvement. The better our content, the better the discussions, the more people will come... I know a lot of forum posts have to reference other people's talking point or content, so a topic can devolve into lots and lots of URLs to social media, or YouTube video embeds. But rather than have rules around this, which I don't want to do, it would be great if we could encourage people to join who will use the forum a bit like having their own blog - Posting original hands-on opinions and content about cameras and shooting... Our own insight is better than constantly referring to that of others - It would be good for the community. Just some thoughts and open to more ideas too about how to grow this rather nice place that we've got.

I don't understand whether this is a provocative post or a serious one. Now, I am also somewhat ignorant of the topic but some of the statements seem 'exaggerated' to me to be good. In general, digital has greatly democratised cinema and its art. But every art has its era and its crafts and this constant 'it was better before' is largely pissing me off. It describes good old times that never existed. There were horse carriages and the farrier lobby, then came the railway and goodbye farriers. The truth is that today any artist can produce a film with cinematic quality at home and at a negligible cost. Unless you regret the old Super 8 home movies. Anyway, back to the data. It's hard to talk about resolution as we understand it today in the digital world, but I have my doubts that a good film will not solve 8K, quite the contrary. Here a document for nerds: http://www.tmax100.com/photo/pdf/film.pdf But here there's a video that explains it more simply. Regarding the immediacy of film.... are we talking cinema or home-made Super 8s? Because if you mention Clint Eastwood and Kodak Vision (Vision is cited also in the YT video above) then it's much more complex with intermediate and print stocks: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Film_stock Ah and color grading existed on film stock too. It was called color timing: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Color_grading Finally, am I saying that digital is better than film stock? NO, they are two different medium.

The soundimage.org guy has been posting here for over a decade! Lots of interesting and useful stuff there, btw.

The shots were so dense I literally couldn't get past it to concentrate on the story. Style over substance. Or, the style was most of the substance. Looked ridiculously good though, didn't it?

You sure about this? Or just speculation based on the online comparisons? The internal processing of the S5ii is almost offensive when compared to the previous gen, but I hardly notice it in practice since it’s less aggressive in Vlog. And I really only shoot in vlog or burnt LUT. The bigger issue on that camera is the green tint to the noise floor in the internal codecs that is visible as soon as 1-2 stops under, and that seems to be pretty much gone in the S1rii. I’ll agree though I was looking forward to their first internal raw recording in full frame, but it is what it is. Reminds me of how I always cropped in on the a7rii for anything video for the best rendering.

This a good piece about how it was used.

Some are a bit faster. For instance, the non-EDR 8K readout is 16ms on the R4D and it's 20 or 24 or something like that on the Panasonic. But otherwise, yeah - most of them are really close. You've been able to see a bunch of R4D footage in cinemas - including parts of Civil War. If Flight Risk is still in theaters, some parts of it were on it too. Oh, and there is apparently BTS footage that shows it being used for F1. Though I'm not sure if it was the 8K or the 6K that was used on them. RS isn't too different between them, anyway. You're likely the target market for Panasonic. There's not much with the S1R II that would inspire somebody to move to L mount, but if you're already there, I'm sure Panasonic see it as a bulwark to prevent further defection from the system. The only overheating I saw in any tests was in the most stressful modes - and after 1 hour. To me, any criticism of the overheating is basically silly. If the long interview needs to be 6K open gate and 2 hours long, then yeah, it's not the dream camera. Good. People talk lots of shit on forums, but that's all most of it is - especially me. 😅

« Color Grading »

I'm sure he'll argue "that was almost two years ago!"

I just think 30ms+ rolling shutter in 2025 on a $3.5 hybrid cam is a bit of a piss take, and it does render the open gate mode compromised and also the 8K. The line-skipped / pixel binned modes are fine though. Decent amount of detail, but again nothing that a much cheaper camera can't do.

Good thing, Ninpo made a joke and that you know about it. Just these youtube jokers make themselves believe they are not a joke nor shills. @wushuliu We know they are a joke though and not even being entertaining. S1RII, keep the hot footage coming.:)

It's a work in progress, yes, so the feedback is appreciated. Your suggestions align with our thoughts as well, so the affirmation is encouraging. There were a few different storytelling tacts we considered. We ultimately decided to not deviate from their reality much and stay true. Our usual tendencies would have been to play up some of the challenges to heighten stakes, but their thing is actually rather modest and somewhat mellow, so (this edit for our locals anyway) is character study and a slow unfolding of their situation. We expect to ultimately make a short "TV" version where the tighter and conventional storytelling stuff is in play. So many different cameras were used simply because that's what we had on hand. Also, there was a perverse pleasure in knowing we were using a ridiculous mix of cameras and then trying to unify IQ in post. So much of what my wife shot was on an old Fuji XPro2. Which is kind of a really dumb thing to do if you know that camera. But oh well! I often used a Olympus EM10iii --with a 1970's 50mm on it. That's the camera that caught alot of the people shots. For the hawks, my severely banged up GH5 had a super cheap vintage Toyo 500mm lens and a 2x extender on it. That was the rig that caught the most bird footage. Rented some things along the way, but the timing of the rentals and nature didn't yield much. Having that old lens was the silliest thing ever for capturing clean nature shots, but there was a lot of fun in the challenge of trying to make it work. Manually trying to focus while panning at an effective 2000mm fov? That was difficult. I should have bought a real tripod, like a Sachtler, for trying to get birds in flight. Not doing that was a mistake. The Oly cam was the most doc friendly. Small, unobtrusive. Easy to use handheld kuz of the decent IS. Looked good most of the time. Trying to film on my Xiomi 12s Ultra was...meh. Got a few pretty shots on it, but missed so much while fiddling with the touch screen. No thanks. Not doing that anymore. Also, the phone's IS induces unwanted image jitter. Bleh. The phone camera can look really great. On par with the other cams in a way. Not a practical tool though. As for audio we just put 3 lav recorders on the main characters and let it rip. Typically 2 hours in the morning, 2 hours at night. x3 x60 days x2 years. No monitoring of the audio. We got what we got. Keeping impressionistic field notes helped when trying to find good phrases later. The standard grind of doc editing there, mitigated with the novel AI assist of transcribing. Every once in awhile we'd pull out a blimp/deadcat/shotgun thing and get some quick interviews, but only a handful. Finally, the days in the field were not really working shoots, per se. More like us hanging out with friends, so those numerous hours were not a problem whatsoever. Still, our rate card plus those hours would have kept the wife and I flush, but this is doc film making so that ain't happening. If we ever see a return on this I'd be amazed. Cheers!

Well, when I started coming back to EOSHD and read your laments, I knew we were on the same page. That clatchy shutter has been the reason I've almost eclusively used the S5 for video. For stills, I always grab the S1.

Someone on this forum is actually producing work and putting it out into the world?! I had to watch and I am glad that I did. I thought that the visuals and editing were really nice. I loved the energy you created in the opening; it was riveting right off the bat. Hal is a memorable and interesting character. I tend to think of raptors as generally solitary so seeing such a magnificent series of "rivers" was a real treat -- I had no idea. I am by no means a wildlife documentarian, but I'd like to offer a little critique. You've got a great setup but then I was waiting for an obstacle. Something that raises the stakes. Is the solar farm or other development being pushed through? What happens when Hal steps down? Or (and I really hope that this doesn't happen), what effect will the new strain of avian flu have on these birds? I think it might be worth keeping in touch with these folks because any one of those scenarios would add the drama that a piece like this needs to get into the bigger festivals or broadcast. Or if it just doesn't look like the story will evolve much more (or you're just ready to move onto the next thing), I'd recommend cutting it down to a very tight 20-25 minutes. Maybe the climax is when the influx of birders come out in response to the email. There was good tension in that scene, like the citizen scientists were about to lose control of the mob. Now a couple of questions. I saw in another post that you shot this with something like a dozen different cameras. What was the reason for that? Did any of them prove to be particularly documentary-friendly? It seemed like you had a LOT of people wearing lav mics and you caught some really choice soundbytes that added a lot to your story. What was your approach to audio? And how many times would you say that you've been out there for a shoot? One last thing. The screener was only in 480P but that didn't stop the story from coming through at all. 4K be damned. Great job on this and thanks for sharing. It was the most compelling share I've seen here in quite a while!

The notion of "color grading" is largely a commercial-construct designed to create the job of "colorist" and to sell computer hardware and software. Movies made after the 1980s look consistently worse and worse, because the popular concept of "fixing it in post" has led a generation of film-makers to disregard the importance of proper lighting, story, acting, and set design. Something went very wrong in cinema after the mid-90s. Both socially and artistically. This degradation of quality in film-making coincided with three shifts in film-aesthetics: 1. The move from celluloid to digital. 2. The move from capturing a look based in 'reality', to color-graded footage. 3. An odd obsession with increased resolution. With increased-resolutions, the decay of cinema became even more profound: When an actor's face is shot in close-up at 8k, we are seeing a level of surface-detail to the human-face that we would NEVER see in reality. So, what is the 8k+ film-maker actually capturing? Cinema is predicated on our 'suspension of disbelief'. To intentionally shoot a film that cannot be believed, because it does not represent 'reality' in a way that we could possibly see, is anti-cinema. The Rise of Anti Cinema Through both malice, and incompetence, cinema has decayed. Before it can be saved, we must acknowledge the extent of this sickness, and then take steps to remedy it. We need to rely less on software, and more on our eyes, on set. We need to embrace imperfection, and return to capturing a plausible reality. We were better off when analog color-timing was the only post-production option for "grading" footage. Cinema can be fantastical, magical, or extraordinary, but it should never be unbelievable. Let's return to honest, practical effects; proper lighting; and artistry in set-design. It's time to stop color-grading. 25 Years of Madness Since the launch of the Sony F900, over 25 years ago, camera companies have been promising a digital replacement for analog 35mm film. For 25 years, they have been completely unable to deliver the 35mm analog look. Instead, film-makers have been expected to mess-around in computer software chasing an aesthetic that can rarely be achieved, and that the camera companies should have been providing as a default output. Why (given the equivalent lighting, set and actors) can no commercially-available digital video camera shoot footage straight-out-of-camera that properly emulates the Kodak 5247 and Kodak 5254 color-negative stocks? These stocks practically defined cinema as we knew it, but they do not exist as digital equivalents. We got scammed Why must young film-makers wade about in a swamp of technical-nonsense, graphics cards, manuals, color-grading, and hardware chasing the look that an off-the-shelf roll of 35mm stills-camera film would have delivered instantly, for five-dollars, in the 1960s, 70s, and 80s? Why can't these stocks be delivered straight off-camera? The camera industry has pushed responsibility for great video-capture onto the "colorist". The colorist is a symptom of decay in the camera and film industry; necessary only because of the technical failings of camera manufacturers, and their inability to simply deliver the replacement for Kodak stocks they promised over 25 years ago. The colorist is also a symptom of the decay in the excellence of artists on set. The Broken Promise of the Camera Industry We were promised film in a digital format. But, instead, the camera-industry redefined "film" as a sub-par version of itself. Then all the failings of this new medium were commercialized in a host of hardware and software to "repair" the damage done. Why is it so difficult for the digital-camera industry to care about creating an accurate version of the very medium that it claimed to be replacing? The digital "Cinema" cameras of today have almost nothing to do with cinema as we knew it. This is nothing short of fraud.