jcs

By far the C100 II (PDAF is well worth it) for video and a FF Canon or Nikon for stills is your best suggestion. I much prefer the C300 II for video over the 1DX II (special case video camera only: 4K slomo and stealth). You'll forget about ML after using the C100 II. Another good combo is the 5D3 with the A7S II. 5D3 for stills and the A7S II for video. You really can, without too much effort, fairly closely match skintones between the 5D3 and A7S II when using Sony's SGamut3.cine color profile (and Slog2 or any CINEgamma). The A7S II requires very careful WB settings and you sometimes have do specialized tweaks (not just color temp). A recent Hollywood red carpet shoot used Daylight WB with A-B: B3 and G-M:M3 and the results under ARRI Tungsten and the Directors Guild of America indoor theater lights looked just like what I saw with my eyes, especially skintones. A buddy was shooting on RED and really liked the A7S II footage in low light. You can also take reference stills/video with the 5D3 and match the A7S II in post. The example below only took a few minutes (and could be even better with a few more minutes of work, such as pulling blue from reds to match Canon (Sony comes out too pink). A7S II on the left, C300 II middle, 1DX II right). YouTube does strange things with color on the still- play the video to see actual colors: The Canon XC10/15 are other options to consider for video.

Yes, that's the difference. To be honest it won't really make a difference either way except for some extreme cases (and/or NLE issues which don't handle levels properly). Try it both ways in your NLE to find out.

Another way to make actors/models look better is with special software tools. For stills: http://www.portraitprofessional.com/ (amazing time saver! I turn down the effects most of the time to look more natural). For video: https://www.digitalanarchy.com/beautyVID/main.html . Neat Video in PP CC track-masked to just the face and re-grained works pretty well too. For fellow iOS/GPU coders out there, you can create a nice skin-smoother that runs in real-time on an iPhone using a bilateral filter (available in GPUImage: https://github.com/BradLarson/GPUImage ). Beauty Box probably uses a bilateral filter or similar, and only runs the filter on the skintone color range pixels (part of the complete continuous mask, not just stray pixels). Cameras that have a 'skin smoother' option also likely use some form of a bilateral filter along with face and skintone detection. I'm surprised there aren't more post tools / plugins which run on the GPU for doing pretty radically cool things with faces/skin in real-time. Especially localized effects which aren't possible with cameras/lenses/filters. For rapid turn-around / vloggers / live shoots, cameras which makes skin look amazing can be very useful- someday that will be a bullet point option with a lot of competition. Time saved in post is money in the bank. Current hardware can easily do this in real-time now (iPhone, Sony & Samsung, perhaps Panasonic embedded hardware (Canon may be doing something basic with skintone color right now, though apparently affecting entire scene color)). After removing detail/wrinkles/blemishes it's important to re-grain/re-texture, else it looks fake. Haven't seen any commercial products of any kind which do this yet.

More options are of course better. Canon is very popular because of the way people and skin tones look. Most consumers don't really know or care about resolution/sharpness. As long as it's not super blurry, they'll be happy or won't notice. A lot of movies shot on film look very soft compared to current digital acquisition. However the film grain creates pleasing texture and a kind of false detail that doesn't look like digital aliasing- very organic. I just shot a red carpet event in Hollywood on the A7S II and it looked pretty good once the WB and custom profile were carefully set (Cine2 with SGamut3.cine color + other tweaks). Hours of footage were shot and the client appreciated the low light performance, skin tones looked pretty good (matched fairly well to what I saw live), and the files were very small. However in post there's not much flexibility to grade, and as others have noted Sony still looks more like video than Canon. If the 1DX II shot better 1080p I would have used it for the interviews on the red carpet (well lit with ARRI lights) because people really do look better with Canon/ARRI and celebrities are very sensitive about how they look. For shorter events and/or with a DIT running memory card dumps, 1DX II 4K would have looked amazing, especially for the files sizes compared to the RED that was shooting RAW (he also had major /battery/power/boot up time/ limitations for a live event). The theater shots were very low light; nothing can touch the A7S II right now in that situation (so I would have had to bring two cameras). An A7S III with better IBIS, Sony's '4D' AF closer to Canon's PDAF, and skin tones close enough to Canon/ARRI, will make a lot of people very happy. Right now there's nothing on the market that can compete with what the 1DX II can provide: amazing skin tones, sharp/detailed enough 4K (even though not really resolving 4K of detail), market leading AF (PDAF), amazing automatic white balance* (useful in mixed lighting and live/docu events), native EF lens support with PDAF (no fiddly adapters without usable AF), very high reliability, very short boot time, and a decent balance of 4K image quality and file size (compared to say a RED). * it's possible Canon is looking for faces/skintones and optimizing WB for skin at the expense of other colors (which makes for example strong reds and blues to look quite different). Latest Canon cameras can optimize for 'ambient' WB as well as the traditional method (whites).

One of the reasons models, actors, and clients like Canon, and they don't really know why, is that it is softer, and when there is no visible aliasing, looks more like film. A very sharp still image can look great for a landscape or a young model/actor with perfect makeup (or Photoshop). Otherwise 'just enough detail' is best along with zero digital artifacts- looks organic/analog. Additionally, when a very sharp image moves the pixels will 'dance' and the resulting effect is a kind of temporal aliasing, which looks more like video than film. Slightly Gaussian blurring a sharp video then adding film grain can help reduce the temporal aliasing, since the noise is random and not associated with camera/scene element movement. At the highest end of cinema film production, they use various forms of diffusion/softening filters all the time on ARRI, RED, F55/65 especially when filming close ups (these filters can of course be used on any production; we use a Tiffen Black Pro Mist (you can also use a pantyhose)).

16-35 F2.8 II works great with 1DX II, fairly silent too.

Nice shots, cool music and matching Alan Watts VO.

All of our Canon L lenses and the 50 1.4 work fine. However they all make varying amounts of noise (50 1.4 is loudest). Canon STM lenses are silent (limited selection: http://explore-lenses.usa.canon.com/stm-lens-stepper-motor.html ). When close mic-ing to the subject, typically not an issue, however if using a camera mounted mic, it can be an issue.

We replaced our backup 5D3 with a 1DX II: shooting both stills and video. The 1DX II / 1DC are great 'stealth' video cameras. Our main video camera is now the C300 II. PDAF, a swivel screen, pro audio, great 1080p (4K is not need for our current projects and Premiere still struggles with 4K material (each PP CC update is hit or miss- sometimes 4K works better, sometimes worse. FCPX handles 4K fine (even with high quality rendering / no transcoding)). Thus the C100 II really is a great deal right now- fantastic 1080p, pro audio, swivel screen, PDAF, tiny files, Canon color, etc.

To clarify, let's define love as promoting life and hate as destroying life. Any use of the word love that isn't about promoting life isn't love. Romantic love and love in the form of attachment can be healthy but can also lead to great suffering when not truly promoting life. With these definitions, God is Love makes sense, regardless of one's religious or scientific beliefs. Where God is the Universe, and this Universe clearly promotes life. Human beings are not logical, nor is the universe (quantum physics shows us this more and more), and thus critical thinking and logic haven't provided solutions to helping people get along. There is a concept called Perception is Projection, and in order to hate someone or something, one must first hate something in themselves that they then see in the outside world: each mind is running a separate and unique reality generator in their neural network. So, if you find yourself hating someone or something, ask yourself what is it in you that you hate that you are externally projecting on someone or something. Eastern martial arts teaches not to hate, even in battle, as they understand this concept. Thus those with intentions to destroy life will be stopped, but without hate. The same applies to love, one must first love oneself before they can love others. Everyone would benefit learning NLP (Neuro Linguistic Programming) to see how those truly in power are manipulating and using politicians and mainstream media for their own selfish goals at the expense of everyone else. What's the benefit to each of us for both parties hating each other? What's the benefit to those truly in power? It's not a matter of needing leaders or not, leaders are a natural part of social systems and will always manifest. We change the world by first changing ourselves, helping those around us understand for example, what love really is, and so on from the bottom up or from our local sphere of influence outward. We cannot change the world from the top down. The top is holding on to power at all costs, and that's all that matters to them. While the topmost system is corrupt, we must love them too as much for them as for ourselves. You're right, there aren't any enlightened leaders, yet. Maybe you'll become one of them.

In this piece it means both ways. This is more clear when you study all the content from both sides. The unconscious mind doesn't do well with negatives. A better form is #wepromotelove and leave out the other party, which is unfortunately a negative implication in today's politics.

Looks great David! Promoting hate, however, causes suffering. Hating someone is like taking poison and expecting to hurt the other person. The only person hurt is the hater, mentally and physically: stress hormones damage healthy tissue, reduce immune function, etc. Additionally, look at all the information about what is going on, from both sides, and from other countries around the world if you'd like to get a better understanding of what is really happening. Do you want to be a leader helping to heal yourself, your community, and the planet, or do you want to be a slave-pawn in someone else's selfish game? We need to focus on loving ourselves, those around us, and everyone else around the planet, and holding those accountable who are promoting division and hate, replacing them with more enlightened leaders.

When one examines how the universe created DNA, what DNA represents, and how the brain stores and retrieves information, we can see that future video compression can be orders of magnitude more efficient. Resolution independent fractal & genetic algorithms (iterated/generative) are still be developed for video (nothing commercial viable yet), and perhaps with the assistance of neural networks (machine learning & AI), radically improved video compression will become commercially available in the next 5-10 years. Of course such systems will require more powerful hardware, however that doesn't seem like it will be an issue given how GPUs continue to more or less follow Moore's Law (possibly faster than Moore's Law with new processing designs: http://www.pcworld.com/article/3072256/google-io/googles-tensor-processing-unit-said-to-advance-moores-law-seven-years-into-the-future.html ).

Interesting. The noise in the blacks for the latest firmware for the C300 II, especially with Canon Log 3, is really low. This test shows the improvements: I haven't done A/B tests, however just pulling up the blacks and seeing basically no noise in my quick tests with Canon Log 3 was very impressive. The low-light image looks better than even the A7S II (didn't test crazy high ISOs). Since Canon was able to improve noise performance on the C300 II, perhaps the 1DX II with dual Digic 6+ processors can also provide even better noise performance in the future with a firmware update. Someone mentioned a full-frame 5DC rumor (or perhaps that would be the 1DC II?). By crippling the 5DIV for video, they've left open the option to make a full-frame cinema camera (maybe that's also an option for the C700 with the rumored sensor swap capability; 5DC/1DC II would be the b-camera option). I think even some of the die-hard Canon bashers are realizing that color is number one, which is why there's so much emotion around lack of other features, such as slow motion, log formats, video aids, and crop factors. If Canon didn't have great color, there wouldn't be any controversy- people just wouldn't use or care about their cameras.

The 1DX II is very clean in the shadows (as is the C300 II with the latest firmware: amazingly clean).

PP won't play 4K 1DX II material in real-time on my late 2013 MBP or 2010 Mac Pro with GTX980ti. The hardware is plenty fast in both cases; PP is ancient software and can't take advantage of the GPU efficiently. FCP X plays 1DX II 4K material in real-time on both pieces of hardware. For PP I'd transcode 4K material to 1080p. If you're on Windows and FCP X is not an option, I've heard reports that in some cases real-time 4K is possible (I've seen this briefly on the MacPro in Windows 10 with the GTX980ti, however it's not reliable and stutters frequently).

The A7R II's AF works much better than the A7S II: A7R II AF (Skintones and color aren't too shabby either) A7S II vs C300 II AF (1DX II AF is similar to C300 II) Canon's PDAF is clearly the best, the A7S II's isn't really usable unless the subject is relatively still.

To keep expectations balanced- Canon's DPAF is really good, currently the best AF on the market, however it doesn't always work. Sometimes it must be turned off, though you can still use the DPAF system to help with manual focus. The big reason to use the 1DX II over something like an A7S II is the AF, as with a little work the color on the Sony is usable (especially when using a Canon to capture reference color). If Sony makes another improvement in color, at least at much as the improvement from the A7S to the A7S II, improves the IBIS to something closer to Olympus (more usable for video- less jumps), reduces the RS, and improves the AF to be a bit better than what was in the A7R II, then Sony will be very competitive. Especially since they can perform full pixel readout and filtered downsampling for full frame as well as very high quality 1080p.

Canon's PDAF is very good and works well in most cases. It's not perfect, however it's the best AF I've ever used. Really great for keeping moving faces in focus. You can also use it to assist with manual focus. I'm not sure I'd replace the A7S II with the 1DX II. Instead add a 1DX II and keep the A7S II for lowlight and 120fps, and any time you need high quality 1080p and small files. You can use the 1DX II to shoot reference stills to help color correct A7S II footage. You could use just the 1DX II for 1080p with post sharpening for closeups, then use 4K down sampled to 1080p for wide shots. Or shoot everything in 4K and transcode on ingest to 1080p. Offloading from CFast 2.0 via USB 3.0 is very fast.

It's possible to match the A7S II to the 1DX II reasonably well: The only thing I didn't correct was lip color, which should not be somewhat easy with Lumetri's new secondary correction (the still image from YouTube looks very different from the video). When I originally posted this, no one could tell which camera was which (A7S II 4K to 1080p, C300 II 1080p, 1DX II 1080p). Thus Sony's color is 'off', but it can be corrected when using Canon as a color reference. 1DX II 60p with my old custom log-like profile: Since you've found that your custom CLog isn't really very different from Canon's CLog on the 1DC, you'll be very happy with the 1DX II. 60p, much less RS, and of course the PDAF.

It's too bad there aren't any commercially available Super Resolution sharpening algorithms available (use aliasing information to actually improve resolution). That would be another solution. When the 5D Mark III came out in 2012 everyone online complained about how soft it was. This video showed that with a little post sharpening and very sharp lenses it was usable: It's now 2016 and Canon still has the softest 1080p for DSLRs (except perhaps the 5DSR). It still takes some post work to make look decent, however the PDAF makes it almost a toss up between something like the A7S II which is very sharp but has almost useless AF. The C100 II is really the best bet for those looking for decent 1080p, good skintones, and PDAF for a decent price. For slomo Sony is currently the best bang for the buck.

Canon 1DX II, Video Mode, EOS Utility 3 All settings can be changed (did not see a visible difference for Fineness and Threshold while watching the Live View on the computer). Canon 1DX II, Picture Style Settings for Fine Detail Fineness and Threshold not present. I haven't done detailed testing for in-camera vs. post-only sharpening (edge convolution, unsharp mask etc.), however the in-camera sharpening looked OK for this test. For slomo on the 1DX II I'd stick with 4K60p if quality is paramount, else 120 could be used for very short shots, and/or close ups along with Neat Video (aliasing, noise), post sharpening, and added film grain. If PDAF isn't needed, the A7S II is much better at 120fps and skin tones can match well enough using Canon reference stills (A7S II settings: Slog2 + SGamut3.cine, +12 sat. etc.).

I tested using EOS Utility 3 and it allows changing Strength, Fineness, and Threshold. Fineness & Threshold changes didn't make any visible changes; setting Sharpness Strength to just right of center on any picture style looks the same as the default Fine Detail.

That's right, skin tone. When I show models and actors shots from Canon vs. for example Sony or Panasonic, they almost always prefer Canon for skin tone (stills and video). Isn't Canon the number one stills camera in the world? Aren't there a lot more people shooting stills on Canon than people are shooting video with ARRI? Doesn't Canon also make scanners and printers and lenses too? While my favorite video cameras are from ARRI (the same as Hollywood), I have to concede that Canon knows more about color than anyone else, and it's backed up by their sales. That's the only way they're getting away with releasing cameras that don't seem to have competing features, yet they still outsell the competition. The reason must be color, or is it something else? PDAF on a camera with similar features and color to ARRI is very compelling, that's why Canon is pricing it high. If it doesn't sell, they'll reduce the price. The C300 II is sold out until at least the end of the month on B&H- the price is now competitive.

To get the best detail 1080p out of the 1DX II: use the Fine Detail picture profile with Contrast at -2. Skintones are still a bit waxy: use a little film grain to improve. Some aliasing will occur on fine detail, Neat Video might be able to help there. I tested this at 1080p 23.98 IPB and 119fps ALL-I on the 1DX II (needs a bit more post sharpening- still fairly soft even with Fine Detail picture style). Also tested the A7S II at 119fps- far more detail and usable DR, much lower noise, though does look more video-like vs. the Canon straight out of camera.