jcs

What's a better, simpler term, etc., to describe a manufacturer's complete color processing system, from optics, color filter arrays, sensor design, and digital processing? 120fps is decent on the A7S II (perhaps A7R II also?). For the 1DX II 120fps, have you tried a little post-sharpening and perhaps unsharp mask with a radius around 30-150 pixels? (http://www.cambridgeincolour.com/tutorials/local-contrast-enhancement.htm). Add in decent film-like grain and it can be usable. Again, taking a still with the 1DX II as a reference and shooting with an A7x II and using the Canon still as a reference can result in decent color.

The C700 is a killer camera! Skintones as good or better than ARRI (depends on taste; can match the cameras easily in any case), competitive DR (ARRI still probably best), builtin NDs, efficient high-quality H.264 (same or similar to C300 II), ProRes if desired, 60p 4K (good enough for us right now; could always rent an ARRI/Red/Sony for the occasional 4K super slomo (120-200fps etc.)), perhaps the best low-light pro camera performance, and the big one: usable pro-level AF via PDAF! ARRI, Red, Sony, and Panasonic don't have anything like it for their pro cameras. Another possible big feature once we can see test results: a global shutter option (ARRI's RS is very low and Sony has a GS option for the F55). Regarding the A7S II- while I can match it close to Canon in post in terms of color, it takes time and effort and in the end the full frame 'advantage' isn't really worth the effort for most shots. For low light shallow DOF, and very low light shots, the A7S II is a useful tool, however it never looks as good as Canon (or ARRI) when there's basic control over lighting. For moving shots, RS on the A7S II is challenging. AF on the A7S II is only barely usable for relatively static shots (A7R II is much better). If Sony can add A7R II or better AF to the A7S III, with less RS, improved IS, and better skintones (have an ARRI compatible setting as Canon does now), that will be a great camera.

No one's disputing that. By pulling highlights and boosting shadows with an s-curve, it's possible to expose to protect the highlights without losing the shadows before compression. If cases where highlights can be protected via underexposure and shadows can be lifted in post (which is probably the case with the 1DX II), this technique is not worth the effort.

Not really an issue here- the goal is maximizing DR, a simple curve can be used in post to set final contrast/levels.

When Philip Bloom asked for my Clog picture style today, I went back into the Canon Picture Style editor and removed all the color changes I had made, and now it's only a gamma curve with contrast at -4 (sharpness off and saturation at 0 (not taken down or raised)). http://brightland.com/t/1DX2_JLOG2f.pf3.zip . Note that the results are very similar to the ancient Technicolor CineStyle (which I also tested on the 1DX II- think I like just Standard with contrast at -4, sharpness and saturation at 0 the best so far vs CLog emulation: less surprises in post (might still be useful outdoors and other very high DR shots)).

You can't make a real CLog profile, just an S-curve to try to emulate it. I wasn't happy with what it does to colors and messing around in post to look good, so I stopped using it. I tried this back in May on the 1DX II.

Anyone can do this, I did it in May: In practice I stopped using it as I preferred the skintones from the stock profiles and less work in post. Still useful for perhaps certain high DR conditions.

The C300 II is selling very well, sold out until then end of September: https://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/1134579-REG/canon_0635c002_eos_c300_mark_ii.html We use the C300 II along with the 1DX II (for low-profile run & gun, travel shoots, and occasional 4k60p) and while it's not an ideal 'all-in-one' solution, it works very well in production given the excellent PDAF AF and great color and skintones straight out of camera (a real time-saver in post). The C300 II + 1DX II is lot more expensive than an FS7 up front, however time is money and ultimately getting better images (in focus!) in less time is more important than the initial savings for an FS7 (we're selling our FS700- 60p is good enough (and 120p on the A7S II is useful too (can match A7S II to Canon with a bit of work in post)). As more professionals find PDAF saving time and money in higher and higher end productions, the PDAF cameras will naturally get more popular. The C700 will be even more like an Alexa/Amira but with PDAF- that's something ARRI and Sony don't have. Sony could bring their A7R II level AF (or better) to the pro cameras someday, and if they can get closer to ARRI/Canon for skintones in real-world lighting conditions (not just the studio), they'll put up a good challenge to Canon (and even ARRI).

That's possible, however around Hollywood/Beverly Hills I see C100, C300 (I/II), Reds, Alexas, and even the XC10 (paparazzi), but not many Sonys...

For daylight shots, my old iPhone 5S can take great shots: have used many out-the-window cloud shots from airline flights with great results. Beach shots and other similar bright shots look as good as any camera + Apple has excellent color science (full feature films have been shot on iPhones: Tangerine, 9 Rides (low light too)). Future phone cameras will surpass the best cameras of today, including various light field and multi-lens computational camera designs providing shallow DOF and 'perfect (simulated) optics' etc.

Perhaps it depends on location? When I asked the folks at Division Camera in Hollywood many months ago (they hadn't had the C300 II that long), they said the C300 II was renting very well, just surpassing the FS7 (Alexa Mini was also very popular). Alexa is popular as it takes the least work in post- largest usable DR and best color/look straight out of the camera. The DR really helps if over/underexposed: good recovery results are possible in post (people make mistakes, lighting can change unexpectedly etc.). This saves time and money (don't need to reshoot, and/or a shot that would be lost on another camera is still usable).

The FS7 is great for slomo, the C300 II is great for AF, color, and skintones. Getting ARRI-like color from the C300 II is an amazing deal and the DPAF is super useful. Not having to mess with color AT ALL (if just wanting accurate/pleasing skintones) is a great advantage of the C300 II over the FS7. That's why Canon is still so popular.

Crop Factor is the ratio of diagonals for the optical image circles. Width ratio and/or area ratios are meaningless as they don't relate to the actual optical imaging circles, especially when using the correct Crop Factor for matching cameras and lenses for specific shots and DOF via Equivalence math. Right now an A7S II or A7R II (much better AF) along with a Canon 5D III could work really well. Use the 5D III to shoot raw stills of the scenes. Then in post color match the stills to the A7x II footage. I've done this by eye and it's not that hard: with the 1DX II and C300 II to the A7S II: Note that no one could tell which camera was which for sure until I gave the answers. It might also be possible to create a 3D LUT for A7x II to Canon, however shooting reference raw stills will probably work better.

Crop Factor is based in the Image Circle, that's why the diagonal is used instead of the width. The diagonal is based on the video mode not stills mode (entire sensor), so it's a little more work to compute the Crop Factor. Your math is indeed simpler, unfortunately it will lead to confusion since it's not actually the Crop Factor. You could call it Width Ratio or similar to let people know it's not the image circle diameter ratio and not the actual Crop Factor.

Since shooting on the C300 II and 1DX II, we don't use the FS700, A7S, GH4, or 5D3. The reason is autofocus and color (except the 5D3). A7S II is still useful for lowlight and also has decent 120fps 1080p slomo (haven't needed the 240fps of the FS700 in a while). To save production time we've switched back to 1080p on the C300 II (need to use 4K on the 1DX II as the 1080p isn't very good). Premiere CC is still very weak for 4K on a powerful computer (FCP X is fine). If the 5D3 does full-frame true 1080p with low rolling shutter and the same or better DPAF, it will be a nice complement to the primarily 4K 1DX II.

When I first got into professional filmmaking I went on shoots with other professionals to learn how they worked. The shoots that were well planned, with detailed shot lists, storyboards, pre-rehearsals, table-reads, fully blocked and rehearsed, etc., always went much smoother and the crew were much happier, resulting in much better products than shoots that winged it or were otherwise not well prepared. My day job which funds my film projects is software engineering (I currently only shoot for our own internal projects, currently working full time to develop Cosmic Flow). The same patterns apply to creating software: planning, testing ('rehearsing'), iterating (re-rewriting the script/shots after rehearsing/table-reading/testing) is critical for a smooth production. When working with teams, sometimes folks don't want to do the 'hard/not-very-fun' work of planning, testing, and iterating. My last few projects didn't have as much planning as I would like and the results weren't as good as we need (even live interviews can use good planning). Since I have to operate the camera, handle sound and lighting, and do the editing, I take steps to make my life easier for the final edit. Our current shoots in production are much better planned and the results are also much better. There's an idea in software called the "lazy programmer". This actually means the opposite of what it says: the programmer spends a great deal of time and effort planning, designing, and iterating so that after the software is developed, their life will be much easier moving forward as it will be more reliable, easier to use, and easier to maintain. Thus the extra up front effort vastly reduces effort and headaches down the line (there is a balance- too much planning is counter-productive). The same pattern applies to any form of product creation, especially film.

With good DPs, ARRI and Red can cut together no problem. When someone goofs somewhere or weather changes rapidly (it happens ;)), ARRI tends to recover better in post. Their totally custom Alev III sensor is still peerless, as is their IP for digital film emulation (from their years of building film scanners). They may hold the lead until there's another breakthrough in sensor design (and probably film emulation too). I like what Black Magic is doing and some of the footage looks really, really good. For personal or hobby hobby work, it makes sense. For paid work, I'd spend more for something bulletproof in production (they're still going through growing pains, just like Red did (they are now pretty reliable)). Sony is headed in the right direction for skintones and color- I would expect their next camera releases to be closer to Canon (F65 can already produce amazing color- up there with the best, even ARRI; not clear how much work in post that requires though (very few examples showing this kind of color quality (Lucy, Oblivion)).

I've shot with Red and edited the footage. I like the wavelet-based codec- never any block artifacts, ever (compression can only soften the overall image). Red is a technical camera, and loved by technologists and tweakers (hardware ;)). Endless software options and menus, highly configurable hardware and OLPF options etc. Red Dragon skintones can indeed look really nice, the framerate options are excellent, as are the resolution options. Editing the footage is also easy with a modern CPU (multicore) and GPU. The reason ARRI (digital) is the top pro camera is it's not a technical camera! It has a very simple hardware and software interface, limited GUI options (relative to other cameras), and isn't focused on resolution (Alexa, Amira. ARRI 65 is high res (6560 x 3102)). I'd be wiling to wager a few drinks that the average person cannot see the difference between ARRI "4K" (3.x upscaled) and Red "4K" (softish 5-6K scaled down) when displayed on the latest HDR 4K TV (showing normal as well as HDR content) or even better, on a 4K projector in a theater. Final real-world resolution is so close it's irrelevant. Where ARRI wins is usable dynamic range, highlight behavior (ARRI is still closest to film: the best), and color rendition, especially skin tones. In a studio environment with very controlled lighting, all the top cameras can do pretty well with a bit of post work. However ARRI's strength is that in the real world with imperfect lighting, skintones and overall color require much less work in post. Production costs are far more than camera rental (or purchase cost for a longer production or owner/operator), so it makes sense that ARRI is #1 in the top tiers of filmmaking. Lucy and Oblivion looked amazing- the F65 is still an interesting option at the very high end (Reds were used for some shots in Lucy (driving etc.)). For smaller operations, the C300 II with very similar color and quality to ARRI (can use Alexa LUTs), far lower power requirements, and now most importantly, highly useful auto- and assisted-manual focus, makes a lot of sense when a focus puller isn't available or would not be possible (run & gun, gimbal w/o wireless FF, etc.). The 1DX II also does very well for single operator run & gun (also doesn't appear to alias as with the C300 II and fine fabrics). We considered the Alexa Mini, however the lack of autofocus pointed us to the two Canons. Red was not considered due to an overly complex design (the opposite of ARRI and Canon, more like Sony). We just want the simplest camera possible, reliably capturing accurate color and highlights with modest file sizes and a fast post workflow.

https://shotonwhat.com/cameras/arri-alexa-series-cameras 489 titles https://shotonwhat.com/cameras/arri-amira-series-cameras 3 Titles https://shotonwhat.com/cameras/red-digital-cinema-cameras 416 titles https://shotonwhat.com/cameras/arri-arriflex-series-cameras 618 titles (film)

For low budget indie, get something with high quality focus tracking and manual focus assist such as the C100 Mark II (we use the C300 II and 1DX II). While the A7S II is great for low light, and we can make skintones look decent, Canon color is still much better for skintones and requires less time in post, which is very valuable. Getting your shots in focus, especially moving shots will save time and money. If you have an experienced focus puller available, this is less of an issue, however your camera rig will be much more complex, and some shots such as gimbal/steadycam benefit greatly from solid autofocus. The C100 II is razor sharp 1080p- the soft wide comment must have been the lens or focus. The files are also very small and easy to edit. Sony is getting better with skintones with each new camera release, and their autofocus is improving as well. I would expect their next release to be very competitive. Until then, the C100 II is a great sweet spot camera for bang-for-buck, reliability, autofocus, low light, and skintones.

Thanks guys. Good points on moving subjects away from wall re:shadow. The other comment (from DVXUser folks) was to move the lights higher. I started with the lights higher but lowered them as the little LED panels (1 Aputure AL528S and 1 AL528W) with tracing paper for diffusion didn't have enough power relative to the bright daylight coming through the window to sufficiently light the faces. 2 more of these little panels (4 total) would have worked better (2 up higher, 2 lower), or maybe some of the newer high-powered LED spot/Fresnels with umbrellas or other shoot-through large diffusors would work better (and still pack small for travel). This was a travel shoot in a hotel with only a few minutes of prep before shooting. They came in, sat down, attached the lavs, did a sound check and we rolled. We had the air conditioning turned off and it got really hot really fast (Las Vegas- ~114F outside). We all had to go to class immediately after the interviews (we did one more after Steph & Shay). I wanted WYSIWYG to take advantage of Canon's great color science, so I didn't use the tweaked custom-curve (log-like) profile I used in the past with the 1DX II. Just the Standard profile with contrast turned all the way down. I originally tweaked the color a bit in post (FCPX), however YouTube cranks the saturation for 4K uploads (some kind of color space issue, there's a thread here about the issue), so the footage is pretty much straight out of camera. The C300 II footage (Jacqui on green screen) is Canon Log 2 (ARRI settings), and adjusted only with the FCP X color board (levels (added contrast) and saturation, that's it (no color shifts or other tweaks). Regarding lavs- hiding them is a good idea, and I have some Oscar Sound Tech 802s (tiny, flat), however I prefer the sound of the stock Sennheiser's better. The studio shots use boomed Schoeps CMC641 and Audix SCX-1-HC (in a studio environment for voice, they sound very similar despite the huge difference in cost). On my hardware (4 core MacBook Pro and 12-Core MacPro with GTX980ti) FCPX edits 4K footage much better than Premiere Pro CC. FCPX's keyer (green screen) is also much faster/easier to use than Premiere/Ultra. Regarding NLP- everyone should learn about what it is and how it works. Mainstream media, corporations, pick up artists, sales people (which is everyone, really), and <INSERT CONSPIRACY THEORY HERE, e.g. MK Ultra> use NLP to influence us, sometimes for good, sometimes for their purposes. Once you learn about NLP, you'll never look at advertising and mainstream media the same again, especially all the election related material. Additionally, NLP can be used to change one's life for the better, and in an amazingly short amount of time (using for example Time Line Therapy). Most people aren't even aware that they make most of their decisions and behaviors from their unconscious minds.

Full range is 0-255, Slog2 is 16-235 (8-bit output range).

Green screen: C300 II (Clog2 (ARRI settings)), interview: 1DX II (Standard with min contrast). Edited in FCP X (Clog2 footage adjusted in color board- no LUTs). https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oxDgMrX3Z3M

Interview with Sean Stone (Oliver Stone's son) on Cosmic Flow (science meets metaphysics): https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vScY3ScuUSU Shot on C300 II. Edited on FCPX (4K C300 II source files)- editing was fast and fluid (edited a a Mac Pro and later on a MacBook Pro (late 2012 4 Core)). Motion was used to quickly create a smoke effect for the spirit animal retrieval section. Spirit Animal Retrieval Before starting to work on this show, I was skeptical of metaphysics. Shamanism, which was perhaps popularized in the West by Carlos Castaneda in the '80s, was a hip way to view reality and 'non-ordinary reality', but faded away when it was discovered that he used 'artistic license' when writing his 'non-fiction' books about don Juan Matus & shamanism. I attended a weekend seminar on shamanism in San Francisco and was surprised to learn that I had enhanced creative visualization when doing the exercises along with drums played at 5-7Hz. It turns out that 5-7Hz drumming can help to put the brain into Theta (just above a sleep-like state, a trance). This is a real effect, which can be measured: https://web.stanford.edu/group/brainwaves/2006/Maxfieldabstract.html . While studying NLP (neuro linguistic programming), and after filming hypnosis stage shows, I realized that shamanism is a useful and valid way to talk to the unconscious mind. While it's always possible (and not currently possible to measure) that there's something metaphysical going on, we can see that the process of spirit animal retrieval and 'installation' (blowing the animal into the head and chest, 'locking it in' with the rattle) are forms of communicating with the unconscious mind via trance (shaman role) and hypnosis (client/patient role). Shamanism's ordinary reality is the conscious mind, and non-ordinary reality is the unconscious mind. Drums are a simple and effective tool to explore the unconscious mind via trance, and ayahuasca (DMT + MAOI) is a powerful tool for exploring the unconscious mind by shamans for thousands of years. Hopefully this sheds some light on the spirit animal segment.

Thanks Jason. Studio green screen is C300 II (first segment), slomo is 1DX II (cutaways during interview), interview (low light) A7S II (Jacqui and Susan), airplane/clouds iPhone 5S (background). Last segment is also C300 II.