stephen

IMHO the strength of the RGB CFA's over the photo sites is related more to the exposure than to color. Stronger filter = less photons reaching the photo sites. But still one pixel (photo site) = one basic color (R, G or B). The other two still need to be generated/interpolated in software in order pixel to have all RGB values. There is no need to theorize in that much details. Everyone can do simple test. Take a photo of an object with one single color (in RAW). Let say a blue ball. Import the picture in photo editing program. Camera doesn't matter. If color of the object was BLUE can make it GREEN or RED or any other color. That’s why said RAW has no color.

OK maybe this statement (RAW has no color) is not that accurate. The point is that RAW has to be developed before you have the color of every pixel. You have the values for each pixel from the bayer sensor but they are one of the 3 basic colors only - Green, Red, Blue. With different intensity. Before the debayering / development you don't have "real" colors - RGB values for each pixel, only one of this values - R or G or B. The other two are interpolated, "made" by the software. So before developing the image you can't measure anything related to color. This process has 3 variables (actually more): 1- the sensor and other electronics around it. Let's call it hardware. 2- the software that do the debayering/interpolation. 3 - the human deciding which parameter to use for the development. For color there are many parameters that can be changed in the software. So how you are going to measure for accurate color the developed image coming from RAW (because RAW can't be measured), when it is dependent of so many parameters and most of them are not related to the camera ? Yes watched the video and totally agree with Tony that for RAW there is no point to measure color accuracy of the camera or cameras color science. As color depends on too many variables and parameters outside of the camera. You can literally get any color you want in the program. Now Mattias and many other people argue that every camera (sensor and electronics in the camera) has specific signature and they affects the RAW image and as result the final/developed image. This is true. It that sens not all RAW are equal. Yes indeed it's one of the variable (some of the variables) in the process and for sure has an impact for the final image. Dynamic range of the sensor for example definitely affects the final image. But for colors specifically my argument is that all those differences in the sensor are easily obliterated by the software. Remember 2/3 of the color information is made by the software. It is the software (algorithm) and human behind it, who has the final saying what color a pixel and whole picture will have. So for me when people says different sensors / hardware give me differences in colors they mostly mean: different sensors/cameras gives me different colors in MY workflow. :) You can perfectly color match photos from different cameras/sensors. Same for video. So we agree to disagree here

There are no colors yet in RAW. What to test then ? The color science of the developing programs or the skills of the person working with it ? For photography everybody is using RAW for serious work but yet argue about BETTER color science which affect only JPG and is different for different profiles and is subjective at the end. Better doesn't mean accurate. Better is very subjective. In this part he's right IMHO. For video however it's different. For those mirroless / DSLR cameras we don't have the choice of using RAW video. We still can tweak the colors but are much more limited, white balance is backed in. Tweaking the colors the way we like them is not that easy in video as to take a RAW file and fix the white balance. Getting the colors close to the final edit straight off the camera for video may save tons of time and effort. So don't agree with him when he throws video in the argument but does only test photo.

He mentions that color science apply to JPG photo and video. RAW allows you to change colors as you like when developing. Test was for JPG photos. He also says that there were indoor scenes and outdoor scenes, so in my understanding it's not only the photo he's showing in the video. There were several photos/scenes but he’s showing only one as an example. He says nothing about the creative style / picture profile used. So assume standard was used for all cameras. Dave Dugdale has a video comparing all Sony A7 III creative styles. With picture profiles off, standard creative style seems to be the best for skin tones in video. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q6VyspXsS5I Tested it in other scenes and scenarios. Surprisingly it works well and am quite pleased with the results in most of those scenes. Dynamic range is not the best but not all scenes need it. Use standard for video quite often. So this is one more confirmation Sony colors in last generation cameras (A7 III, A7R III) seems to be accurate in Standard style.

Sony cameras improved and slightly changed from generation to generation. And the last generation scientifically seems to have the most accurate colors. Both tests agree. Which is kind of interesting having in mind one of the main points of Tony's video was to prove color perception is subjective. After all it looks there is some objectivity and correlation with science ? In Tony's tests and the other test it's not clear what creative style was used. Because JPG colors change with different styles (in Sony Land) and different picture profiles for other cameras. Same for video. Guess standard was used but nobody is saying it. For me the most interesting and revealing part of the test is how tolerant we are to color variations and how difficult is to make the difference.

And yes agree with Andrew there is quite difference between photo and video on those cameras. Photo has RAW, so we can adjust white balance in post. Video has white balance baked in. Tony's example of fixing white balance is valid only for photo. And the whole test/survey is for photo. He throws in the bag video as well, but it is different and has to be treated and commented differently. So he’s wrong on this account too.

IMHO Tony actually did a very good test/survey. Blind tests are rare. Certain parts may be questionable but general conclusions are valid IMHO and quite revealing: 1. Color perception and preferences are subjective. Both for professionals and nonprofessional viewers. 2. Brand loyalty skew personal opinions even more. 3. Slight variations of colors usually gets unnoticed by the general public(viewers) and even by professionals. We start to see the differences when we compare different cameras / images. Quite true IMHO. While there is definitely science in colors, personal preferences rules at the end. There is nothing scientific in personal preferences. So saying that camera A has better color science than camera B is somewhat wrong, when we discover that BETTER is subjective. Better color does not mean scientifically correct colors it just means colors we personally like and prefer. A blind test just prove how off those personal preferences may be. So it's correct to say better colors FOR ME. Does it means we do not need LUTs or adjusting colors or use Andrew's EOS Pro Colors settings? Are color adjustments really just one click of the button away? Of course not. Getting the colors we want or like may be quite time consuming in both photo and video. If we like the colors of our videos strait off the camera and want to leave them like this, then fine. If we prefer the colors of camera A better than camera B, and have camera A then lucky us. But if we don’t like the colors straight off the camera or want some special colors and/or vision then we have to tweak them. In video this can be quite laborious and time consuming. Color correction and grading is a well payed profession. If somebody already have presets that tweak, adjust the colors the way we like it, well bring them on. He did the laborious part and those presets will save us quite a lot of time and work in post. So Tony is right about the subjectivity but wrong when saying one click and white balance will do it for most of us. Unfortunately not that easy and simple. IMHO he gave the example of white balance adjustment to show that all cameras have good RAW images to start with and differences are not that big.

LukiLink is dead on arrival. It's a nice concept but now we have some cheap 5'' IPS monitors at ~ the same price. They have 1080p resolution, are relatively light and have all the controls needed for video. Like Feelworld F570 5.7

Tried v15 Beta 1. Here are my initial impressions: It's very simple and fast to add titles. There are many predefined 3D templates. More templates will come for sure. LUT Browser is awesome if you use LUTs and want to try different color grades Improved speed and interface. Improved noise reduction. In v14 noise reduction was good enough for me. V15 is even better. Very easy to remove objects and/or spots / blemishes on the footage Whole workflow is well thought and using all the tools is easy and quite intuitive. Bottom line: It's my only video editing software now. Has everything I need and like it a lot. Well done Blackmagic.

In theory there should be difference in colors, in practice there is none at least for Sony's A7 series and Pana GH4/5. Sareesh / Wolfcrow / says in the clip above that there is no visual difference and you are not suppose to see such difference. Since first Sony A7S and Pana GH4 watched reviews and clips comparing internal recording (8 bith 4:2:0) with external (8 or 10 bit 4:2:2) and never saw a difference. Downloaded original clips, compared them, same thing. You can check Dave Dugdale tests too. Same thing Is the GH5 10bit a Game Changer over the 8bit Sony a6500? GH5 Conclusions with James Drake 8 bit vs 10 bit Cameras from Two View Points Amateur and Professional Colorist Dave argues also that there is no banding in Sony's 4K A7R/A7S II internal recording. Maybe it's a result of a particular implementation by the manufacturers in those class of cameras. Maybe not. But there is no visual difference. Higher bit rate and better codec on the other hand will help in post and color grading. But you can get them with external recorder.

And inside the file name there are two words beside many meaningless symbols: CrazyGrade. This looks like a hint. On which footage you can do crazy grades and have such good colors as end result ? RAW or something like 10/12bit 4:4:4 ? Just speculating Different resolution same 4/3 ratio

Let me try my math and logic. Size of the image is 3840x1440 and if this is was shot on a 2x anamorphic lens then 3840 / 2 = 1920. Original frame was 1920x1440 witch is basically 4/3 ratio. So correct me if am wrong but it looks like a m43 sensor.

Question for Video Devices PIX-E5 owners and users. How good is the screen for outdoor usage? Is it comfortably usable with some form of hood ? Read conflicting reports. Some say it’s OK, other say it’s not usable. Trying to decide between Video Devices PIX-E5H and Atomos Ninja Flame. Basically would prefer the smaller size and weight of PIX-E5H but will 5 inch and 500 nit of brightness do the job? Atomos Ninja Flame is bigger and bulkier but everybody is saying screen is awesome and usable in daylight even without hood.

@tigerbengal Repeated your settings and benchmark is showing me similar results. Actually they were lower. 57Mb/s first test and 43Mb/s second test. So there is a problem with the benchmark in this mode. Your card however is 100% OK and not the problem. After the benchmark tried to record at 50p and yes it worked without a problem and was continuous. So next question is which version of ML with you run. Mine is from October 2017. Usually get the latest one.

Running ML benchmark of the same card in camera gives me 153Gb/s Read and between 117Mb/s and 120Mb/s Write which basically mirrors the Crystal Disk Mark test on the computer. You get different rates for in camera tests. 100Mb/s external vs 67Mb/s internal. Why such a difference ? Don't know. Maybe be you can still try different card ? Or just repeat the test several times. Some cards may need more time for warming and achieving maximum speed. It's strange but again doesn't seem to be the card, as thought initially based on your in camera benchmark results.

Actually your card is OK. Not as fast as mine but plenty. You need 80-85 Mb/s and your card is capable of 100 Mb/s. So it's not the card. Question is why you get only half of this speed in the camera ?

@tigerbengal It is very unlikely slow recording speeds to be a camera problem. And easy to double check the performance of your CF cards. Plug them (one by one) in a USB3 port with a USB3 card reader and run Crystal Disk Mark. Here are my results for Lexar 1066x 128Gb with default settings in Crystal Disk Mark (5 and 1GiB). Card is formatted as FAT32 Read speed on SEQ Q32T1 - 144.3 Mb/s Read speed on SEQ - 151.4 Mb/s Write speed on SEQ Q32T1 - 114.4 Mb/s Write speed on SEQ - 127.2 Mb/s

Now you know exactly where the problem is. You've got bad CF cards. Have 3 different cards - Komputerbay, Transcend and Lexar. When benchmarking them on the camera Komputerbay gives me ~ 85Mb/S, Transcend 87Mb/S and Lexar 93Gb/S. It's the best one I have. Lexar was a reputable brand and BH is reputable dealer, how you ended with bad ones, we can only guess. According to the specs on BH internet page for Lexar 64Gb CF 1066x, Max. Write Speed is 155 MB/s. Your cards are far from those specs so you have a valid argument to return the cards. You can ask for replacement from the same brand but different batch or choose SanDisk 64GB Extreme PRO 64Gb/128Gb which is the other highly recommended card.

Magic Lantern gives you feedback about the data rate before you start recording. When you position the coursor on top of RAW module in Magic Lantern Menu it tells you at the bottom what is your data rate. Am on PAL mode so on my camera with your settings it says in green letters: 69.8 MB/S at 50.000p (50%) Countinouos recording OK When exiting the Magic Lantern menu then hitting the 5x button, then going back to Magic Lantern menu and positioning the cursors on top of RAW module it says 43.2 MB/S at 29.776P Countinouos recording OK So with x5 in this mode you are actually not recording 50/60p and your data rate drops significantly. Now if you are able to record at 43.2 MB/S but not at 69.8 MB/S, then this again points to a problem with the CF card. It is a good one that should be able to record at rates close to 90 MB/S. Mine is Lexar 128Gb 1066x same model, only different size. But guess what, my first Lexar was fake, could barely go to 45 MB/S and had to return it. So do a benchmark of the card and confirm it can achieve 90mb/s which is normal for this card.

Your settings are correct. Used them with my camera and got continuous recording. Aspect ratio was set to 2:1 but am sure this is not important. It looks to me problem is with your CF card. Had this result once when forgot to put the CF card and camera started to write on the SD card So make sure: 1. You have the CF card selected in your camera. You have this in Canon menu, which card camera to use. 2. You have a really fast CF card, there are just few brands and cards that can sustain high writing speeds. Am sure you are aware of this. Preview reduction of image quality and slow frame rate is normal. Magic Lantern may be able to fix it later but for now this is how it works in crop mode.

Exactly, that’s what wanted to point out but Deadcode wrote it before me ! The most significant development and breakthrough on 5D Mark III since April the 1st is not 10/12bit but lossless compression in camera similar to Blackmagic. It reduces the bit rate much more than 10/12 bit. And combined with 12bit it makes possible 3K continuous at 2:35 ratio. 12 bit looks better than 10 bit and is almost indistinguishable from 14 bit With all due respect this piece of information is missing in the main article but there is plenty of info in the No Joke - RAW 4K on the 5D Mark III thread on this forum.

IMHO you can't go wrong with Canon FD 28 f2. Recently tested my manual lens collection. Among them several 28mm including Canon FD 28 f2. To my surprise it turned to be quite good. Sharp in the center from wide open, corner were also sharp from f2 and improve a little when stopping the lens. And it is quite affordable compared to Zeiss 28 f2 "Hollywood" which is one of the other options. But if you shoot full frame or s35 with Speed Booster, 28mm are used mostly for scenery. And in this case you usually stop it down to @f5.6 or even @f8. One stop advantage over your current one doesn't matter. Canon FD 28 f2 make sense if you use it without speed booster on s35. It becomes something like 42mm equivalent on full frame at f2.8. And this focal length makes much more sense when shooting people and was favorite of some well known DPs, Deakins among them. In this case you could use DOF creatively and f2 vs f2.8 is desirable advantage.

According to the last reviewer on the BHphotoVideo page Inogeni 4K to USB3 converter works with A7S. But USB3 output for 4K is only 4:2:0 8Bit while Sony A7S HDMI 4K feed is 4:2:2 8Bit, so there is some loss of color information. Specs on BHphotovideo page are not full, you can find the details here. http://www.dexteralabs.com/inogeni/ Hadrware requirements are Core i5 with 4Gb RAM. Pair it with MS Surface 1 or 2 and you get cheaper (under 1K) recorder than shogun but slightly bigger, heavier and of course without the nice screen and many recording options. Not sure if it is worth it. Blackmagic has much cheaper (200$) PCI card for 4K capture if you are willing to use desktop computer. For me it's not viable option but here it is: https://www.blackmagicdesign.com/products/intensitypro4k

Andy, your posts about lenses, look, how they are used in movies were eye opening for me ! Lots of useful info. Thanks a lot for sharing. Ordered New Cinematographers book too :) Following you recommendations about Yashica lenses, got locally a set of 28mm f/2.8, 50mm f/2 and 135mm f/2.8 + 35mm f/2.8 + 50mm f/1.7 from other sellers. Total price for the 5 lenses - 200 Euro. They were hanging for months and nobody wanted them even for low price. Except me :) To complete the set would need 24mm f/2.8 and something in the 80ths range where Yashica has no prime lenses. The only option seems to be Carl Zeiss Plannar 85mm f2.8 in same Contax / Yashica mount or Rollei mount (cheaper). Would go for C/Y version, just to be sure that colors and look would match. 85mm is not prohibitively expensive despite costing more than all other 5 lenses currently in the set. Yashica ML 24mm f/2.8 is expensive too and goes for something like 350$ on ebay. Don't know why. 28mm is cheap and optically 24mm should not be better but goes for 5-6 times more money. Can buy the 42-75mm also locally for something like 20 Euro but it's f/4.5 at the long end. You have this zoom. 35mm and 50mm primes are covering most of the focal range and have bright f-stops (2-2.8). What good is 42-75mm for at f/3.5-4.5 ?

Well it depends how you define character. Apart of Helios 44M, which was mentioned several times and matches your description, there are several other russian lenses that should give you the look you are after. Or at least close to it. Like Mir-1B 37mm f2.8 designed in late 50ths and produced from 1958 to 1992. It flares a lot if there is a light source in the frame or close to it. And it's cheap too. You can find many videos shot with Mir-1B on youtube and vimeo. http://www.vintagelensesforvideo.com/mir-1/