Andrew Reid

Yep the X Pro 2's colour is effortless, you don't need to do anything to it in post and if you just want 1080p, it's a lovely simple solution. The magenta cast in the S-LOG 3 footage though is down to the user not being knowledgable enough with grading tools to correct it. S-LOG is a bitch to work with, so it is partly the camera's fault and partly the user's. I don't blame anyone who has trouble getting the colour from Sony cameras to match Fuji! It's hard!

Much much more difficult and much more advanced, and F1.4 will give a completely different look & feel to an F2.8 on full frame, plus it's 2 stops brighter. It's not right to go around multiplying apertures by crop factor. An F1.4 on Micro Four Thirds is as a big a hole as an F1.4 on full frame. If this lens is as stunning as the Leica 42.5mm F1.2, I will be buying one. Plus... it IS a Leica you know!? It isn't a Zeiss. It's not a Panasonic. It's not a Canon. Leica designed optics cost a lot of money for a reason. No you can't dude. First of all an image is a combination of camera and lens. Tell me about that full frame sensor camera that shoots 4K for less than $1200. It doesn't exist yet. Then add the cost of the 24mm for full frame. Forget about that mythical full frame 24mm F2.8 you seem to be in awe of... the premium, sharp, low distortion optics are the Zeiss Batis 25mm F2, the Sigma 20mm F1.4 and if you can forgive the lesser sharpness and more distortion, the Canon 24mm F1.4 - all of those push you quite far past 'affordable' when paired with even the cheapest GH4-standard full frame 4K video mirrorless body or DSLR, namely the A7S II or 1D C. The GH5 paired with just two lenses, the Leica 42.5 F1.2 and Leica 12 F1.4 will have astounding image quality, likely bettering the A7S II or A7R II with the Batis 25 and 85 for FAR less money. Nobody complains about the Batis 25mm F2.0 price being $1200-ish and that is the nearest modern competitor to the Leica 12mm F1.4 in terms of image quality and modern build standards & AF. All I ever hear is full frame this, full frame that, it's like people are blinded by the pure simplification of all the arguments regarding image quality down to one spec. Not to mention the fact that if the GH5 has the GX85's in-body 5 axis IBIS, it will be stronger than a full frame camera in that respect too... And if it is Super 35mm you want, put a Speed Booster on it. You could say that for $999 you can get an A6300 but the rolling shutter and overheating really kills it compared to what the impending GH5 will likely be capable of in terms of reliability and rolling shutter less than half of what kind of skew the A6300 produces. Then add to that $999 the cost of a 16mm F1.4 E-mount lens... oh there isn't one... ok the cost of a Speed Booster and full frame Canon 24mm F1.4L, and already you are past the $2000 point... Easily. And that is why Bro... You don't knock this Leica 12.

So your price range is 5k-8k? Used C500 = $6k Odyssey 7Q+ = $2k Sorted.

Now watched it all. I'm surprised he didn't get shot.

First 4 minutes are hilarious, then I stopped it - does it get a bit repetitive after that? If not then I'll watch the full 50 minutes I think in the 90's there wasn't the urge to control our own images quite so much or the suspicion over how the material would be used. The internet changed all that and it does make it more difficult to capture a slice of life, documentary style, undetected. People behaving naturally. If you ask them permission, it changes the nature of the footage, it feels stiff and staged.

Yes that's what I'm saying, it has an OLPF. It's a very nice image, if you need 2K raw then it's the best bargain ever... The problem is however that it's just not robust enough for an important occasion or shoot. The other issue is the file sizes. The Odyssey remember can debayer the C500's raw and it goes straight to the SSD as ProRes LT, very small file sizes by comparison to Magic Lantern. The 2K RGB can also go down as ProRes. Then you can drop it straight into Premiere and put a LUT on it (that works with Canon LOG). On a 5D Mark III shoot you in one hand for $1700 with no rigging or monitor you're squinting at a postage-stamp sized non-articulated screen with a very tricky to focus full frame sensor, hoping that the card isn't fragmented to the point where it might just stop in the middle of a critical non-repeatable shot. Then you find that the card is full after just 12 minutes and you have to ask another person on the shoot to sort it out whilst you continue to try and direct and DP all at once. Following the shoot, you then get all the raw files into DaVinci Resolve but you're reliant on a piece of software that isn't primarily designed as an editor, so you do your colour work in there and then transcode it all to ProRes for editing in Premiere. I know Resolve has improved a lot as an editor, but it's still a big shift if you're not used to it. So what I am saying is that it's not quite as simple as $1700. Time is also money. The camera doesn't debayer the raw, just converts it to the 10bit log space for SDI transport to the recorder. Actually I seem to remember reading that not even the 12bit RGB 2K needs debayering, due to the way the sensor is designed. Perhaps Larry Thorpe can come on the forum and tell us how they did it.

The 5D Mark III's raw is 14bit uncompressed but it comes from a pixel binned sensor readout. It requires an optical (or maybe digital) low pass filter to reduce the jaggies, moire, etc. It is about equal in resolution to the old 5D Mark II's raw when you put the Mosaic Engineering AA filter on it. On the other hand the C500's 2K is a 4 channel readout of 4x 2048 x 1080 Quite a bit more info. It's not compressed, but it is clipped down to 10bit. The 2K on the C500 is 12bit, from the same 4 channel readout and 4K sensor. Again it does not have any compression. The colour space is full RGB too, it isn't the YUV compressed kind you find on most 10bit cameras or the GH4's 'uncompressed' HDMI output. In actual fact 'uncompressed' when it comes to HDMI is misleading because it only refers to the lack of compressed codec, which is bypassed. Important things like colour space (YUV) and sampling (4:2:2) are forms of heavy compression. I think there will be a considerable difference between the cameras here. The 5D3 raw is good but it isn't competing with the C500 on paper at all. Obviously the 4K raw is going to win the resolution battle. The dynamic range is likely going to be similar though. The 2K will be much cleaner and more detailed from the C500. The uncompressed RGB 444 mode will be easier to work with in post than raw in terms of just putting stuff straight into the edit. Not $27,000 more, but definitely worth its current used price if you want to step up from Magic Lantern.

In this Instagram post Levi Siver is working on a windsurfing feature with a crew, for an "unreleased Canon camera". In the picture you can indeed see a Canon camera on a rig, although not clearly enough to make out the model. In the comments he's asked if it is a 5D Mark IV, and in his reply he says "Yep it is", smilie face. Read the full article

It isn't just a question of it being better because it's more expensive, rather the point is that the Alexa uses a clever patented method of reading out the sensor applying a dual low gain and high gain A/D conversion to improve dynamic range. What you're implying doesn't make sense, as you're only looking at the cost factor. It's like saying you can't expect a $3000 12-core Intel PC in 2016 to be as fast as a $250,000 super computer from the 1970's. Nonsense. In 6 years the tech moves a long way. I don't think the costs would be unreasonable if other sensor manufacturers like Sony implemented dual-gain architecture on their consumer camera CMOS sensors. It's only a bunch of low gain and high gain analogue-to-digital converters working together, it isn't some gold plated unobtainable material backed onto alien technology that gives the Alexa its dynamic range advantage and film-like rendering - it is the know-how and patents of Arri.

No sadly even though the C500 doesn't have a mirror in the way, the PL Cookes simply won't go on any EF mount. The 44mm flange of the EF mount (distance to sensor) means there's usually only a tiny bit of space left for the PL adapter. The PL adapter must be much wider than the EF mount and have plenty of clearance inside it for the big rear of the PL lens to sit in. They will go on a PL adapter to a mirrorless mount like Micro Four Thirds or E-Mount, since the adapter can occupy much more of the gap between sensor and Cooke.

The F35 image is indeed special, but it'd be interesting to compare the uncompressed RGB 12bit of the C500 to it, since it's a very similar format to the RGB the F35 puts out, in fact on paper it appears to be superior. I wish Sony had gone for longer making CCDs. One of the first Sony cameras I bought was an Alpha A350 stills cam back in 2008. Still stands up today, easily. Guess why... It has a Super 35mm sized (well, APS-C) CCD sensor! You can get it on eBay for 150 quid now. It has in-body stabilisation and the ergonomics aren't bad either, but of course no video. It would be interesting to use that as a way to compare modern CMOS cameras to a 'classic' 14MP CCD Super 35mm chip, especially in terms of colour. The only issue I have with the F35 is that it is mega heavy, pretty big, rather power hungry and would exclude the use of my EF lenses. A PL mount is lovely, and would be amazing with the Cookes, but C500 + Odyssey is about as big as I'm willing to go at the moment for most stuff. It does have slow-mo, the 1080/120p is pretty good. ---- By the way, there's an interesting white paper on the C500's 12bit RGB 2K here - http://www.filmanddigitaltimes.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/07/Canon-Larry_Thorpe_C500-vs-C300.pdf It sounds like a massive leap up from the internal 8bit 1080p. The sensor reads out 4 2048 x 1080 streams which don't need de-bayering. The 4th is a 'super green' which has zero aliasing and extended dynamic range. This is made possible by the pixel design of the 4K sensor. I never rated the C300's image. C500 should be a different matter. Well worth £3k. Well worth £5k even. Let's hope they come down even more.

Actually the Terra has ignored me. I'd love to try one out in Berlin at some point, I can't buy absolutely everything just to review it.

The Arri patent is key, if you look at the Alexa and its dynamic range advantage on the competition, it's still holding up today in 2016. The Alexa was introduced in 2010!! In 2012, Canon's flagship dynamic range with the 1D X / 1D C sensor pretty much peaked. We see very little dynamic range improvement with the 1D X Mark II, 4 years later. Sony / Nikon full frame sensors still can't match the Alexa after 6 years of trying, although the full res stills files (raw at least) are getting closer.

You may as well shoot 4K and do the Ex-Tele in post by cropping a 1920 x 1080 box out of your 4K frame. This way you can activate it at any time and in any part of the frame. Also your normal shots will be oversampled from 4K to 1080p, rather than pixel binned 1080p straight off the card, which looks far worse.

When you don't want to rig the monitor, you could just use the built in EVF and I am sure in future Convergent Design and others will look at doing smaller 4K recorders with SDI ports. I'd certainly buy one. The C500 and Odyssey are more balanced as they are closer in size and weight. Rigging the Odyssey to the C500 isn't like trying to put it with an A7S. With the tiny camera you have to build a whole rig around it, cage, rails, etc. then it still feels top heavy or imbalanced due to the size and weight difference between the tiny camera and the large monitor. What if you want 4K? Without a recorder I'd say you're better off with a Panasonic GX85. Small, cheap, super steady handheld shots, Super 35 with Speed Booster, 4K internal. I've still got all my Panasonic and Sony stuff.

Good find on the CFast 2 cards. Wow, they have crashed in price. The CFX600 128GB was $250 when it came out. Specs - Read: 515MB/s, Write: 160MB/s There's the CFX650 too, perhaps more future proof with write speeds of over 300MB/s No reason future cameras can't do raw internally now.

Isn't film and music so very middle-class these days? Read the full article

You are easily impressed sir

An EF-M version would be great. They might even sell more than 2 EF-M lenses if they did that. Vintage c-mount glass would look very nice on it, not cheap though. It would be tricky to find a 24-240mm equivalent 10x zoom with AF in compact proportions too I don't particularly like manual focus on zooms, it's a lot to think about when you just want to get the shot.

I can't understand why ISO 800 was chosen, it seems to have been plucked out of thin air as some kind of 'native' ISO. In fact if you look at nearly all the stills cameras, they do their best dynamic range at ISO 100-200. ISO 800 is not where the 1D C and 1D X Mark II give the most dynamic range. Also a LOG profile and a standard image profile need to be exposed differently. Furthermore they have set the test up in a way that doesn't test how the roll off is to the highlights or even how much latitude you can pull out of the LOG vs rec.709 image. Really? Don't think so - rolling shutter in 4K/24p looked unimproved on the 1D X II I tried out at the BVE show in London. CineStyle is not a true LOG profile. I know for a fact that Canon LOG gives me more dynamic range than the standard Canon profiles, let's not pretend otherwise! Quite odd how bad people are saying the HD image is. Bodes badly for the 5D Mk IV. They could have intentionally put a mediocre pixel binning 1080p mode on the sensor, which will probably end up in the 5D Mk IV with the 4K mode disabled.

Shows what a bullshit test it was then.

Ha ha ha Ha ha ha Ha ha ha Ha ha ha Ha ha ha Ha ha ha Ha ha ha Ha ha ha Ha ha ha Ha ha ha Ha ha ha Ha ha ha Ha ha ha Ha ha ha Ha ha ha Ha ha ha Ha ha ha Ha ha ha Ha ha ha Ha ha ha Ha ha ha Ha ha ha Ha ha ha Ha ha ha Ha ha ha Ha ha ha Ha ha ha Ha ha ha Ha ha ha Ha ha ha Ha ha ha Ha ha ha Ha ha ha Ha ha ha Ha ha ha Ha ha ha Ha ha ha Ha ha ha Ha ha ha Ha ha ha Ha ha ha Ha ha ha Ha ha ha Ha ha ha Ha ha ha Ha ha ha Ha ha ha Ha ha ha Ha ha ha Ha ha ha Ha ha ha Ha ha ha Ha ha ha Ha ha ha Ha ha ha Ha ha ha Ha ha ha Ha ha ha Ha ha ha Ha ha ha Ha ha ha Ha ha ha Ha ha ha Ha ha ha Ha ha ha Ha ha ha Ha ha ha Ha ha ha Ha ha ha Ha ha ha Ha ha ha Ha ha ha Ha ha ha Ha ha ha Ha ha ha Ha ha ha Ha ha ha Ha ha ha Ha ha ha Ha ha ha Ha ha ha Ha ha ha Ha ha ha Ha ha ha Ha ha ha Ha ha ha Ha ha ha Ha ha ha Ha ha ha Ha ha ha Ha ha ha Ha ha ha Ha ha ha Ha ha ha Ha ha ha Ha ha ha Ha ha ha Ha ha ha Ha ha ha Ha ha ha Ha ha ha Ha ha ha Ha ha ha Ha ha ha Ha ha ha Ha ha ha Ha ha ha Ha ha ha Ha ha ha Ha ha ha Ha ha ha Ha ha ha Ha ha ha Ha ha ha Ha ha ha Ha ha ha Ha ha ha Ha ha ha Ha ha ha Ha ha ha Ha ha ha Ha ha ha Ha ha ha Ha ha ha Ha ha ha Ha ha ha Ha ha ha Ha ha ha Ha ha ha Ha ha ha Ha ha ha Ha ha ha Ha ha ha Ha ha ha Ha ha ha Ha ha ha Ha ha ha Ha ha ha Ha ha ha Ha ha ha Ha ha ha Ha ha ha Ha ha ha Ha ha ha Ha ha ha Ha ha ha Ha ha ha Ha ha ha Ha ha ha Ha ha ha Ha ha ha Ha ha ha Ha ha ha Ha ha ha Ha ha ha Ha ha ha Ha ha ha Ha ha ha Ha ha ha Ha ha ha Ha ha ha Ha ha ha Ha ha ha Ha ha ha Ha ha ha Ha ha ha Ha ha ha Ha ha ha Ha ha ha Ha ha ha Ha ha ha Ha ha ha Ha ha ha Ha ha ha Ha ha ha Ha ha ha Ha ha ha Ha ha ha Ha ha ha Ha ha ha Ha ha ha Ha ha ha Ha ha ha Ha ha ha Ha ha ha Ha ha ha Ha ha ha Ha ha ha Ha ha ha Ha ha ha Ha ha ha Ha ha ha Ha ha ha Ha ha ha Ha ha ha Ha ha ha Ha ha ha Ha ha ha Ha ha ha Ha ha ha Ha ha ha Ha ha ha Ha ha ha Ha ha ha Ha ha ha Ha ha ha Ha ha ha Ha ha ha Ha ha ha Ha ha ha Ha ha ha Ha ha ha Ha ha ha Ha ha ha Ha ha ha Ha ha ha Ha ha ha Ha ha ha Ha ha ha Ha ha ha Ha ha ha Ha ha ha Ha ha ha Ha ha ha Ha ha ha Ha ha ha Ha ha ha Ha ha ha Ha ha ha Ha ha ha Ha ha ha Ha ha ha Ha ha ha Ha ha ha Ha ha ha Ha ha ha Ha ha ha Ha ha ha Ha ha ha Ha ha ha Ha ha ha Ha ha ha Ha ha ha Ha ha ha Ha ha ha Ha ha ha Ha ha ha Ha ha ha Ha ha ha Ha ha ha Ha ha ha Ha ha ha Ha ha ha Ha ha ha Ha ha ha Ha ha ha Ha ha ha Ha ha ha Ha ha ha Ha ha ha Ha ha ha Ha ha ha Ha ha ha Ha ha ha Ha ha ha Ha ha ha Ha ha ha Ha ha ha Ha ha ha Ha ha ha Ha ha ha Ha ha ha Ha ha ha Ha ha ha Ha ha ha Ha ha ha Ha ha ha Ha ha ha Ha ha ha Ha ha ha Ha ha ha Ha ha ha Ha ha ha Ha ha ha Ha ha ha Ha ha ha Ha ha ha Ha ha ha Ha ha ha Ha ha ha Ha ha ha Ha ha ha Ha ha ha Ha ha ha Ha ha ha Ha ha ha Ha ha ha Ha ha ha Ha ha ha Ha ha ha Ha ha ha Ha ha ha Ha ha ha Ha ha ha Ha ha ha Ha ha ha Ha ha ha Ha ha ha Ha ha ha Ha ha ha Ha ha ha Ha ha ha Ha ha ha Ha ha ha Ha ha ha Ha ha ha Ha ha ha Ha ha ha Ha ha ha Ha ha ha Ha ha ha Ha ha ha Ha ha ha Ha ha ha Ha ha ha Ha ha ha Ha ha ha Ha ha ha Ha ha ha Ha ha ha Ha ha ha Ha ha ha Ha ha ha Ha ha ha Ha ha ha Ha ha ha Ha ha ha Ha ha ha Ha ha ha Ha ha ha Ha ha ha Ha ha ha Ha ha ha Ha ha ha Ha ha ha Ha ha ha Ha ha ha Ha ha ha Ha ha ha Ha ha ha Ha ha ha Ha ha ha Ha ha ha Ha ha ha

Kubrick also said that the best restaurant was not always the one with the longest queue.

I can compare it to an onion if I want. It's my website blog By the way, it's a blog about VIDEO

Clearly you have lived in the US for too long - You can't tell the difference between an advert and a documentary